bit-gamer.net

Grand Theft Auto IV

Comments 1 to 25 of 74

Reply
BioSniper 13th May 2008, 08:09 Quote
Yay, one of the first reviews that I've seen that didn't give it a totally over-the-top 10/10 :)
DarkLord7854 13th May 2008, 08:22 Quote
I'd give it an 8 :p

And yes, I agree, the graphics are acceptable, but nothing to make you go "wow"
evanbraakensiek 13th May 2008, 08:33 Quote
Grand Theft Auto (GTA) has never been about the graphics, it's and has always been substance over style.

What's the actual depth of geographical area like? One of the things which struck me about GTA: San Andreas, was the huge expansion of distinctly different areas in comparison to the previous games. I apolgise if you mentioned it in the review, but I did only just briefly skim over, I'd be interested to know how GTA IV compares to San Andreas' in this respect.

Love the front page image, very distinct and GTA like.
Mentai 13th May 2008, 08:50 Quote
That was quite a harsh review, I mean fair, but wow. Everyone else just seems to be gushing about it and don't even bring up any downsides, whereas this was mostly downsides then saying it's worth getting anyway.
The too much to do comment was interesting, since you like Oblivion Joe? To me Oblivion is more overwhelming than a GTA game, and I enjoy it a lot less because I feel a need to be more closely tied to a story in a RPG.
Just waiting on the PC version...
Sigh at it not even being announced yet, but I guess that's console exclusitivity for you.
p3n 13th May 2008, 08:57 Quote
I love the SP and MP but the framerate makes me put it down after an hour orso, I could easily play it for 5 hours straight if I didnt feel sea sick...
Pricester 13th May 2008, 09:12 Quote
I've noticed that on my PS3, the graphics are for the most part fine (although I really get bored by all the brown). What really surprised me was the almost complete lack of anti-aliasing... particularly noticeable on car bodies...

Is there a setting somewhere I've missed? Has my PS3 perhaps decided to run at 640x480 without telling me, despite the HDMI and 1080p TV? I've not seen any comments about this anywhere else, so I have a feeling it is just me...
DougEdey 13th May 2008, 09:30 Quote
The PS3 runs at a lower image resolution and uses a poorer software scaling method to make it HD (720p or 1080p)

The 360 runs slightly higher (620p) and has a more advanced hardware scaling method which produces less lag (not my words)
oasked 13th May 2008, 09:33 Quote
^ I thought the Xbox ran a 720p, but with less filters and effects. The PS3 is supposed to run at 620p (or something close).
DougEdey 13th May 2008, 09:40 Quote
bowman 13th May 2008, 09:42 Quote
If you think this is harsh, look at Anandtech.

I'll wait for the PC version, thank you very much.
CardJoe 13th May 2008, 09:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentai
That was quite a harsh review, I mean fair, but wow. Everyone else just seems to be gushing about it and don't even bring up any downsides, whereas this was mostly downsides then saying it's worth getting anyway.
The too much to do comment was interesting, since you like Oblivion Joe? To me Oblivion is more overwhelming than a GTA game, and I enjoy it a lot less because I feel a need to be more closely tied to a story in a RPG.
Just waiting on the PC version...
Sigh at it not even being announced yet, but I guess that's console exclusitivity for you.

I like Oblivion, but I think there was a big difference in approach there. Oblivion gave you a big world, dumped you out of the sewers and said 'ENJOY!', so you had your own time to go around and explore things. GTA introduces you to the game over several missions in the full world though - theres no fenced off area where you can get to grips with things without being exposed to the overwhelming stuff. In Oblivion the sewers let you do this, but in GTA you see all this distracting stuff which keeps mounting up in your mind while you're still being introduced to the basics - then you add the stuff you have to absorb from the first missions on top of that too.

The thing is, in Oblivion when you're dumped outside you have a big world to explore. You don't know what's out there really other than cities you can fast travel to if you want, so you choose a direction and set off. There's no quick way to get around, so you're allowed (nay, forced) to discover the side content and extra stuff at your own pace.

In GTA, it's different. By the time the game properly starts you know that there are all these clubs, tv shows, mini-games, sidequests, random encounters, radio shows, internet cafes, hidden cars and quests, pigeons to hunt down weapons to find. With all the main quests on top AND the desire to play in the sandbox over-riding everything. You know all this stuff exists and you know where most of it is - but that knowledge is overwhelming and can hold you back when it comes to actually playing. In Oblivion, all you'd have is the knowledge that 'stuff' is out there and the urge to explore, which I find a lot more enticing, if less funny and engaging.
PhenomRed 13th May 2008, 10:14 Quote
Review was a little late, but I'll put that down to the fact you wanted to do a proper review instead of rushing one out...

Good review though, and a proper score too. Other reviews i've read are all "10/10" or "11/10" and although i love the game, your review is more accurate than those ones.
AlexB 13th May 2008, 10:29 Quote
GTA > Portal. Portal is one of the most over-rated games ever!
alastor 13th May 2008, 10:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentai
That was quite a harsh review, I mean fair, but wow. Everyone else just seems to be gushing about it and don't even bring up any downsides, whereas this was mostly downsides then saying it's worth getting anyway.
You should know he's a grumpy git by now :p

I'd agree with the 9/10, it definitely isn't perfect. Although it does seem to be more of the same as with the GTA3 series (3, VC, SA), missions are similar etc, I think the storyline is a lot more involving. It's not going to win any oscars but to me it's a decent improvement. The graphics are good enough for me as well, first time flying over the city in a chopper was a wow moment.
kenco_uk 13th May 2008, 10:39 Quote
Page 3 - para 10 - 'Besides, most of the time you’ll be just be cruising around' - remove 'be'.

The minigames could do with some exciting-ness injected into them. I was expecting to be dealing blows with a pool cue at one point but alas, the pool minigame is just 'barely' that. There are a lot of textures that are a little low detailed, although there has been a couple of times where it's looked fairly realistic. The city lights at night are impressively done.

I got a very similar impression when I first started, Joe - I thought it didn't look as sharp as any other PS3 game.. as if it was displaying at a lower res. However, after playing for a while, it's fairly forgivable as the frame rate (for me, so far) hasn't faltered.

The script has had me literally laughing out loud, there's been some genuinely funny moments and I'm not even a third of the way through the game. It's very engaging, too - one thing about previous GTA titles has been the fact that the missions have never really felt as necessary to do as in this fourth installment. I could cruise around San Andreas on a BMX bike, on a tractor or in a tank for an afternoon, not do any missions, and feel like I'd been playing the game properly. With GTA IV, I feel the missions are now part of the game.
mrb_no1 13th May 2008, 10:59 Quote
Went round my mates on the weekend as he had gta4 there, i was the only person out of 3 geeks that said the graphics werent amazing, my mates curelinious and felixthecat were loving them, i just didnt feel it. The game is awesome though, crash a car into a wall or pillar and watch the dirty serb fly through the front windscreen of the car, or crash a bike and see that dude fly in the air like superman, it is funny and the added realism in crashes and with the blood etc as pointed out in the review do bring the game up to date.

note: does the car handling change with experience or anything, as they were just awful as jo described in the review?

great article, a little short i felt, but thats just me,

peace

fatman
fwalm 13th May 2008, 11:06 Quote
I am very tempted to bring it back, I just don't like it, graphics aren't great and what you said I agree on. Wouldn't even really give it a 9.
sandys 13th May 2008, 11:21 Quote
I agree the graphics are weak, when you look at what Burnout paradise can do with an open world then this looks really poor.

Still its decent fun.
Veles 13th May 2008, 11:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLord7854
And yes, I agree, the graphics are acceptable, but nothing to make you go "wow"

You obviously haven't been up in a chopper at night seeing the entire city. There's much more to graphics than it being shiny, I'd much rather have it is now than have better graphics but a cloud of dust obscuring my view.

It is pretty much GTAIV in a new engine and a few useless features cut from SA, feels a lot more polished than the other instalments, but then it was never really going to be revolutionary. I'd say 8/10 is a good score for it, that's pretty good from me.
Major 13th May 2008, 11:36 Quote
If a game doesn't look like Crysis, it doesn't mean it looks like ****...
g3n3tiX 13th May 2008, 11:46 Quote
I found it a lot more "serious" in the type of missions than SA, no area 51 here...
I couldn't find these cars where when you hop in a mission starts. But I like it a lot, on a PS3 it looks fine in 720p, no framerate issues.
No more bicycles...and no more cop bikes.
CardJoe 13th May 2008, 11:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major
If a game doesn't look like Crysis, it doesn't mean it looks like ****...

Definitely agree. I think it's far more important to have a style of presentation which matches the game and has a unique, effective style rather than just adding polygons on top. Look at Portal and the design in that, or in something like Beyond Good and Evil or XII. Artistically those games wow me much more than Crysis did.
Tris 13th May 2008, 12:38 Quote
this review makes me happy :) as previously mentioned, one of the first i have seen to take a proper subjective view of it and note the problems.
I was excited as everyone else to get it, but after a few hours was pretty disapointed - its a definate step up from the gta3 games in every way....improvements to everything - but that doesnt make it groundbreaking. Its merely building on what they already created.
Graphics were a dissapointment to me as well, probably due to the previous games i played - mass effect, assassins creed, burnout paradise and lost oddyssey. All of those are beautiful in their own way, leaving me expecting more of the same from gta. It is fully understandable though - in response to the comment above about burnout managing to look good with an open world, you forget that the addition of people and other objects that didnt exist in burnout makes a huge performance difference.

I am still playing through the game quite happily, but i certainly dont think its the most groundbreaking game ever.
Hustler 13th May 2008, 12:50 Quote
Gfx wise, i think it shows that the 360 and PS3 just arent powerful enough for true 720p gaming. So far , only about 1 game in 4 runs at full 720p with a decent (solid 30fps or more) frame rate.
Mentai 13th May 2008, 13:21 Quote
I agree with Hustler. To me, game consoles aren't quite next gen, they got pretty close, but they're just not quite as sharp they could be and omg popin/limited framerates. Then again 360 is nearly a couple of years old now...
Oh and beyond good and evil had great art design, I wish there were more games like it.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums