Grand Theft Auto IV Reviewed - again

Should be GOTY - although I haven't played through Fallout 3 yet.

But pro game - enough said.

i love shooting the crap out of cars with an uzi.. specially with people in them

Should be GOTY - although I haven't played through Fallout 3 yet.

But pro game - enough said.

Fallout 3 is in a completely different league to this game. Even Fable 2 deserves GOTY over GTA4.

I've just finished my own (very amateurish) video for release in fact.

Show show.

Soooooon... soooooooon.

I had this giant plan to do this fantastic video about a loan shark but that's the kind of video you need a couple of people for to make it look right.

Soooooon... soooooooon. I had this giant plan to do this fantastic video about a loan shark but that's the kind of video you need a couple of people for to make it look right.

I'm waiting.

I'll be checking it out, but i'm left feeling a bit cold for the fact that they took out planes, parachuting, and the option to go on a leisurely tank rampage - three of my favourite things in San Andreas...

Should be GOTY - although I haven't played through Fallout 3 yet.

But pro game - enough said.

Fallout 3 is in a completely different league to this game. Even Fable 2 deserves GOTY over GTA4.

As I said, that's just imo without playing FO3, and I don't have a 360 to play Fable 2, so that is automatic fail already, at least until the PC version is announced.

As much as that stuff was cool, it wouldn't really fit Daniel Craig type feel to GTA4.



Thought I'm just hoping their waiting till they can do tanks RIGHT, such as a fully deformable city.

Should be GOTY - although I haven't played through Fallout 3 yet.

But pro game - enough said.

Fallout 3 is in a completely different league to this game. Even Fable 2 deserves GOTY over GTA4.

As I said, that's just imo without playing FO3, and I don't have a 360 to play Fable 2, so that is automatic fail already, at least until the PC version is announced.

I was merely pointing out that the game really isn't that good. San Andres was SO much better.

Neg neg neg.

The storyline is better, the gameplay is better, it looks better, the city actually feels alive rather than a random collection of buildings, the characters are better, everything about GTA IV is way better than San Andreas.

TBH i'd rate VC over San Andreas anyway lol.

I'm finding it boring and hard to play through. VC was always my favourite, then San Andreas. I can't stand all the cutscenes all of the time, and most the characters are just annoying me.

Where do I modify cars, build lowriders, fly RC's, race cars, get tattoos and stuff like that. I've only just started playing but are all those things in there?

The storyline is better

Just like syphilis is better then herpes.

the gameplay is better

So what your saying is: Not being able to buy property, pathetically easy cop chases, boring, pointless and annoying 'social' missions, no planes, tiny map with no variety and a world made entirely of brown and gray is better then the opposite?

the city actually feels alive rather than a random collection of buildings

Not really....

the characters are more annoying

fxtd

everything about GTA IV is way better than San Andreas.

Not really, no.

Where do I modify cars, build lowriders, fly RC's, race cars, get tattoos and stuff like that. I've only just started playing but are all those things in there?

None of those things are there. You can't even get a haircut.

Everything in GTA IV is better then San Andreas is better. But San Andreas has alot more fun experiences. 2 player mode, planes, etc is better

onto 2nd argument... sigh

Fallout 3 deserves GOTY. So does L4D, GTA 4, Maybe, and i mean maybe, COD 5. The Class of games are good this year, and hopefuly gets better

Where do I modify cars, build lowriders, fly RC's, race cars, get tattoos and stuff like that. I've only just started playing but are all those things in there?

None of those things are there. You can't even get a haircut.

Sounds like you want a NFS game.

But, yes, there are car races.

And the game isn't about all that superficial **** that was in SA.

Yes, I would of liked the ability to buy property, but out of that list that is the only thing that I feel is missing from the game.

i just find the general physics and interaction of everything in GTA IV is unmatched.. bump into a person very slightly and you'll knock the cup out of their hand.. hit em slightly harder and they'll fall depending on how hard they're hit and from what direction and on which part of their body.. shooting up cars leaves bullet holes in the exact area where they are hitting, windows smashing, bumpers falling off cars, blood splattering all over the interior.. i can't remember any other GTA being as physically accurate as IV.. and to be honest, thats the major draw card here, shooting the bloody **** out of everything

San andreas was a terrible game and if anything serves as a perfect example of 'bigger is not better'.

No doubt they left out many features from GTAIV to pace us and ensure we spend more money when they release more games on the GTAIV engine.

I'll jump on the bandwagon and say Vice city was probably the best compromise between freedom/possibilities and structure/atmosphere

GTAIV for now is great .. despite not being able to do as much random stuff they've really improved the basics which, annoying social missions aside, should serve as a great foundation for future games

Yeah GTA VC is one of my favourite games ever. San Andreas was a lot of fun, and I played it for ages. GTA IV is definitely all about getting the fundamentals right, and getting everything polished. I understand there are some who hate GTA IV for not doing all the goofy stuff like GTA:SA and I totally respect that, but I think GTA IV does what it sets out to do really, really well. And to be honest I spend more time making my own fun in Free mode with my friends than I ever did parachuting off a mountain.

Though I do miss 10 metre bunny hops.

Does anyone know if GTA IV works over Hamachi?

VC >> SA > GTA4. GTA 4 missions got so boring and repetitive i couldnt finish the game. They got the physics and graphics spot on but sacrificed the things that made VC and SA better the gameplay and mission variety. In my opinion storylines for all games were pretty equal.

Hopefully GTA5 can combine the physics and graphics from 4, the extras from SA and the city from VC and a good storyline and i will be in gta heaven.

I'd hate to see it go down the SA path again

Seriously... Blowing up dams, stealing goo from the army, shooting down planes... Never have I see a game manage to take so much and make it so boring.

They desensitised action to the extreme much in the same way we're no longer impressed by special effects in movies.

I got more satisfaction and thrill out of walking a lady through a dark ally in Mafia than any mission in the second half of SA.

But obviously the ridiculous formula is what works for the mainstream.

The only thing i'd say for SA is that the later missions were fairly hilarious - just because of how rediculously stupid they were.

And I think Rockstar purposely went away from that with GTA IV - making it more about the story than just crazy **** that happens.

SA felt more like a Seinfeld episode, where something simple (a guy coming home to bury his mother) turns into something completely out of control (attacking a military train to obtain a vial of "green goo" while riding a jetpack).

Does anyone know if GTA IV works over Hamachi?

I wouldn't see why not. I played it 4 player at a LAN on the weekend, and honestly, it was the most fun I've had in any MP game in a long time. Right up there with L4D.

Grand Theft Auto + Euphoria game engine is the sexorz.

This IS a lazy port...

How on EARTH did this end up with 10!? The game is so poorly optimised it doesn't deserve a rating! And most of the hard work in GTAIV was done by Rockstar North, and the crappy port done by Rockstar Toronto. I really hope Rockstar Toronto gets fired for the sake of Take2...

Because the reviewer can only rate on his/her experience with the game - not everyone elses.

You'll find that almost all of the reviews on the net are around 9-10/10, simply because they have near top of the line, well-maintained computers.

Because the reviewer can only rate on his/her experience with the game - not everyone elses.

You'll find that almost all of the reviews on the net are around 9-10/10, simply because they have near top of the line, well-maintained computers.

Problem is, people with top of the line, well-maintained computers are having a hard time. Those with 4870X2s, SLI setups and GTX2xx series are being screwed over by crappy optimisation. I have two 8800GTs in SLI and SLI isn't even bloody supported. What's worse is that my Q6600 isn't even fully used.

This IS a lazy port...

I agree, terrible port is terrible

Amazing that i'm not having a hard time with an e8500 and an 8800gt.

hmm i've got this on ps3, would anyone recommend getting the pc version for any reason?

Well I purchased this and L4D so I hope that I can agree with the positives of this review!

hmm i've got this on ps3, would anyone recommend getting the pc version for any reason?

More people in MP, video editor, better graphics (if your comp can handle it).

I kinda disliked the driving in GTA IV , not all the of it just when you had to brake and turn , the front of the car felt so heavy.

What's worse is that my Q6600 isn't even fully used.

I don't understand the logic in that post RoastBeef. GTAIV is one of the first games that states a quad core is required as the recommended CPU for this game and it should use all cores.

Because the reviewer can only rate on his/her experience with the game - not everyone elses.

You'll find that almost all of the reviews on the net are around 9-10/10, simply because they have near top of the line, well-maintained computers.

Problem is, people with top of the line, well-maintained computers are having a hard time. Those with 4870X2s, SLI setups and GTX2xx series are being screwed over by crappy optimisation. I have two 8800GTs in SLI and SLI isn't even bloody supported. What's worse is that my Q6600 isn't even fully used.

I'm rocking a 4870X2, Q9550, heaps of RAM and while the game ran like ass the first time I played it (and I was a bit miffed) a quick look at the graphics sliders shows that the game has a lot of wiggle room for punters to mess around with. Poor optimisation would be having it run like ass and looking like the Xbox 360 version, not having it run poorly when you can see the entire game world if you can find a decent view point, or having vehicles persist in the gameworld longer than the cursory "2 seconds after they're out of view".

Is it stated anywhere what settings are used in the 360 version?

Is it stated anywhere what settings are used in the 360 version?

Not officially, but one look will demonstrate a clear difference.

How is it that the game can get a 10 and it can still have flaws?

I thought 10 was a perfect score and implied a perfect game. If a flawless game came along then what score would it get? an 11?

It was the same with the left 4 dead review, you gave it a 10 and still acknowledged the archaic matchmaking system the game used.

Having a 10/10 mean a flawless game would make 10/10 a completely worthless score because there is no such thing as a flawless game. And if we marked games down for using matchmaking every single Xbox game in existence would be automatically incapable of getting anything high, and so too would games using Games for Windows Live. The complaints are simply annoyances which don't impair the overall gameplay experience.

Didn't realize this game got a 10/10. I think thats just silly. Defeats the purpose of even having a rating system. This game has tons of bugs and is very very poorly optimized for the PC.

Just like the Gamepost 10/10 rating makes no sense...this doesn't either -.-.

Fallout 3 FTW.

I kinda disliked the driving in GTA IV , not all the of it just when you had to brake and turn , the front of the car felt so heavy.

heh, you mean you dislike driving in real life.. you have to drive it like a real car with over/under steer

Yeah I'd prefer ratings to almost represent percentiles to an extent..

No point to having a variable that is unachievable.

Look, it may be a really good game but the score of 10 is way too high.

What if the game never gets patched, and remains in it's current state? That's not a 10.

I think reviews send a message, and that message these days is mostly "don't bother quality assuring your product because we don't mind bugs". Well I do mind. Bugs made the PC version of Mass Effect unplayable (after patching!) and I'm not going to risk purchasing GTA 4 on the proviso that it will be patched in the future. They said they same thing about NWN2 and Splinter Cell 4 and look at what happened for those two, still almost unplayable, bug ridden travesties.

Enough is enough I say. I'm sick of reading great reviews for faulty games.

Having a 10/10 mean a flawless game would make 10/10 a completely worthless score because there is no such thing as a flawless game. And if we marked games down for using matchmaking every single Xbox game in existence would be automatically incapable of getting anything high, and so too would games using Games for Windows Live. The complaints are simply annoyances which don't impair the overall gameplay experience.

Of course there's not such thing as a flawless game, just as there should never be a flawless score for a game. And frankly, if the poor matchmaking features in xbox games mean lower scores, then so be it. Isnt being critical the entire point of being a reviewer?

I also disagree that the poor matchmaking in L4D doesnt impact on gameplay. Playing with high pings sucks and we all know the game would be much better with a server browser.

<3 to joaby, but I reckon you game reviewers are too soft. Its up to us fanboys to gloss over the problems of the games and give them 10s. Reviewers are supposed to be hardasses!

Reviewers give out 10 scores like candy these days. Just because perfection is 'impossible' then that means there's no reason for a developer to even try for it. Retarded. Reviews aren't just for punters who have no cognitive decision making skills. It's also to keep the bastards honest. Remeber when critics were seen as 'the enemy' by artists and the like? Now this has changed. It's a mass global back-scratching operation that basically equals consumers like you and me getting screwed out of cash. We'll make a crud-tart of a game, you review it and give it a 10 and we'll all roll in the profits! This is why I only go to a couple of sources for unbiased reviews.

GA is not one of them.

Scores are typically the most contentious part of any review - and rightly so. They're the most subjective part - a section where you rate a game on a scale of 1 to 10 based on how said game makes you feel. That's why we include things like the good and the bad, write a concise but detailed description of the playing experience and attempt to justify any review based on our experience with the game at hand.

The biggest problem with reviewing games on PCs is that people do have vastly different set-ups and vastly different experiences. I recall being asked a short while ago why GA reviews everything on the Xbox 360 or PS3 - it's because publishers don't want to take a risk on whether a random driver conflict will result in a review that reads "This game is unplayable" while someone else never has an issue and says the game is the bees knees.

I think reviewers are supposed to give a fair and balanced review of a game, not smash a game for its faults irrespective of the overall playing experience.

Reviewers give out 10 scores like candy these days. Just because perfection is 'impossible' then that means there's no reason for a developer to even try for it. Retarded. Reviews aren't just for punters who have no cognitive decision making skills. It's also to keep the bastards honest. Remeber when critics were seen as 'the enemy' by artists and the like? Now this has changed. It's a mass global back-scratching operation that basically equals consumers like you and me getting screwed out of cash. We'll make a crud-tart of a game, you review it and give it a 10 and we'll all roll in the profits! This is why I only go to a couple of sources for unbiased reviews.

GA is not one of them.

I don't mind having a discussion with you guys about the merits of scoring systems for video game reviews. Hell I think there are a lot of great arguments against even giving a game a score at all. But while I'm being completely honest with you all I will say I do object to the implication that GameArena is part of some sort of corporate circle jerk. You're entitled to your opinion G-Ninja but I don't think it's a very fair call.

Having a 10/10 mean a flawless game would make 10/10 a completely worthless score because there is no such thing as a flawless game. And if we marked games down for using matchmaking every single Xbox game in existence would be automatically incapable of getting anything high, and so too would games using Games for Windows Live. The complaints are simply annoyances which don't impair the overall gameplay experience.

Of course there's not such thing as a flawless game, just as there should never be a flawless score for a game. And frankly, if the poor matchmaking features in xbox games mean lower scores, then so be it. Isnt being critical the entire point of being a reviewer?

I also disagree that the poor matchmaking in L4D doesnt impact on gameplay. Playing with high pings sucks and we all know the game would be much better with a server browser.

<3 to joaby, but I reckon you game reviewers are too soft. Its up to us fanboys to gloss over the problems of the games and give them 10s. Reviewers are supposed to be hardasses!

I think that Chaos Theory would fall into the category of the perfect game,no patches no bugs repayable,really good fun, it is the only game that is still installed after Doom3,Half Life2, Condemned, Double Agent, Far Cry, Bio Shock,etc etc have all gone into the never to be played again bin.

Because the reviewer can only rate on his/her experience with the game - not everyone elses.

You'll find that almost all of the reviews on the net are around 9-10/10, simply because they have near top of the line, well-maintained computers.

Guys - this^.

If the reviewer has no issues - why should he/she rate according to the issues that other people are having?

I know it is inevetable that GTA:IV will be compared against GTA:SA and VC, but it IS an entirely new game that was built from scratch.

What blows me away is that most games are made in such a way that the player is forced to see everything that the designers have put into it. Some even make the cutscenes unskippable so that the player is forced to witness every last scrap of creativity that went into the game.

GTAIV however, I was blown away by the fact that when I was attempting one particularly hard mission, the characters went through a different, but relevant dialogue four times each time I restarted the mission. I mean, you could play this game many times over without seeing every detail or hearing every bit of dialogue. It's just huge. I still go back to GTA:SA and hear peds say things I had never heard before. They have made this thing, fully knowing that some players may miss so much of what went into it. That's really getting your moneys worth out of a game.

I don't mind having a discussion with you guys about the merits of scoring systems for video game reviews. Hell I think there are a lot of great arguments against even giving a game a score at all. But while I'm being completely honest with you all I will say I do object to the implication that GameArena is part of some sort of corporate circle jerk. You're entitled to your opinion G-Ninja but I don't think it's a very fair call.

I don't think GA is more guilty than any other game review site, but I think that the amount of 10s that have been thrown around this year is ridiculous. Your choice of words is apt, game journalism largely does feel like a corporate circle jerk with the gamer being the least important person in the equation. The relationship between press and publishers in gaming is getting downright incestuous. The gaming press is too reliant on getting exclusives and advertising deals that they are unable to present an unbiased view with their game reviews. The precedent is set by the big companies like CNET and IGN, and if the other reviewers end up giving scores contrary to everyone else then they lose their connections with the publishers. Its getting worse and worse as time passes. If it continues, gamers will end up with an industry that makes Hollywood look like the bastion of credibility, honesty and good taste.

This is just my opinion and I don't know if Im crazy or not in thinking this, maybe I just havent been around for long enough. Am I completely mad, or is their some substance to all this?

Reviewers give out 10 scores like candy these days. Just because perfection is 'impossible' then that means there's no reason for a developer to even try for it. Retarded. Reviews aren't just for punters who have no cognitive decision making skills. It's also to keep the bastards honest. Remeber when critics were seen as 'the enemy' by artists and the like? Now this has changed. It's a mass global back-scratching operation that basically equals consumers like you and me getting screwed out of cash. We'll make a crud-tart of a game, you review it and give it a 10 and we'll all roll in the profits! This is why I only go to a couple of sources for unbiased reviews.
GA is not one of them.

I don't mind having a discussion with you guys about the merits of scoring systems for video game reviews. Hell I think there are a lot of great arguments against even giving a game a score at all. But while I'm being completely honest with you all I will say I do object to the implication that GameArena is part of some sort of corporate circle jerk. You're entitled to your opinion G-Ninja but I don't think it's a very fair call.

That is the funniest thing, a game critic having a big girly cry over being criticized.

it is the only game that is still installed after Doom3,Half Life2, Condemned, Double Agent, Far Cry, Bio Shock,etc etc have all gone into the never to be played again bin.

At the risk of sounding like I'm just flaming - What are you, an idiot?

Reviewers give out 10 scores like candy these days. Just because perfection is 'impossible' then that means there's no reason for a developer to even try for it. Retarded. Reviews aren't just for punters who have no cognitive decision making skills. It's also to keep the bastards honest. Remeber when critics were seen as 'the enemy' by artists and the like? Now this has changed. It's a mass global back-scratching operation that basically equals consumers like you and me getting screwed out of cash. We'll make a crud-tart of a game, you review it and give it a 10 and we'll all roll in the profits! This is why I only go to a couple of sources for unbiased reviews.
GA is not one of them.

I don't mind having a discussion with you guys about the merits of scoring systems for video game reviews. Hell I think there are a lot of great arguments against even giving a game a score at all. But while I'm being completely honest with you all I will say I do object to the implication that GameArena is part of some sort of corporate circle jerk. You're entitled to your opinion G-Ninja but I don't think it's a very fair call.

That is the funniest thing, a game critic having a big girly cry over being criticized.

I'm not having a cry dude, I'm just saying I don't think it's a fair call. You guys are more than welcome to criticise what I write - everyone here does regularly and I cop it sweet - I'm just saying I don't think saying GA is part of a global conspiracy to screw consumers is fair.

it is the only game that is still installed after Doom3,Half Life2, Condemned, Double Agent, Far Cry, Bio Shock,etc etc have all gone into the never to be played again bin.

At the risk of sounding like I'm just flaming - What are you, an idiot?

It was i response to the claim their was not a flawless game.And i believe that Chaos Theory falls into that category! Iff you don't agree,well to bad.

it is the only game that is still installed after Doom3,Half Life2, Condemned, Double Agent, Far Cry, Bio Shock,etc etc have all gone into the never to be played again bin.

At the risk of sounding like I'm just flaming - What are you, an idiot?

It was i response to the claim their was not a flawless game.And i believe that Chaos Theory falls into that category! Iff you don't agree,well to bad.

You still don't get it?

What are you, an idiot?

Reviewers give out 10 scores like candy these days. Just because perfection is 'impossible' then that means there's no reason for a developer to even try for it. Retarded. Reviews aren't just for punters who have no cognitive decision making skills. It's also to keep the bastards honest. Remeber when critics were seen as 'the enemy' by artists and the like? Now this has changed. It's a mass global back-scratching operation that basically equals consumers like you and me getting screwed out of cash. We'll make a crud-tart of a game, you review it and give it a 10 and we'll all roll in the profits! This is why I only go to a couple of sources for unbiased reviews.
GA is not one of them.

I don't mind having a discussion with you guys about the merits of scoring systems for video game reviews. Hell I think there are a lot of great arguments against even giving a game a score at all. But while I'm being completely honest with you all I will say I do object to the implication that GameArena is part of some sort of corporate circle jerk. You're entitled to your opinion G-Ninja but I don't think it's a very fair call.

That is the funniest thing, a game critic having a big girly cry over being criticized.

I'm not having a cry dude, I'm just saying I don't think it's a fair call. You guys are more than welcome to criticise what I write - everyone here does regularly and I cop it sweet - I'm just saying I don't think saying GA is part of a global conspiracy to screw consumers is fair.

Yea sorry Joaby! Orange Box,Happy!

ffs sick of the flaming.

Pretty sure Joaby said in another review news post that a 10 didn't mean a flawless or perfect game, just that it is a must-have

read up and get ur friggin information. IGN give 10's to games that don't derserve it ( GTA IV > HL2? pfft ). i rkn the GA is one of the unbiast ones, as they aren't that big, and don't get paid off by big companies ( afaik )

it is the only game that is still installed after Doom3,Half Life2, Condemned, Double Agent, Far Cry, Bio Shock,etc etc have all gone into the never to be played again bin.
At the risk of sounding like I'm just flaming - What are you, an idiot?
It was i response to the claim their was not a flawless game.And i believe that Chaos Theory falls into that category! Iff you don't agree,well to bad.


You still don't get it?

What are you, an idiot?

Haha, I even underlined AND emboldened it, in prediction that he wouldn't pick it up. I think he just proved my point.