Grand Theft Auto IV – Review

Platform(s):  Xbox 360  PS3 
Developer(s):  Rockstar North 
Publisher:  Rockstar 
Series:  Grand Theft Auto 
Genre(s):  Shooting  Driving 
ESRB Rating:  Mature (17+) 
Read More:  Game Reviews 
Daniel Weissenberger's picture

GTA IV Screenshot 

The term sociopath was coined primarily because 'psychopath' had too many negative connotations. It describes people, the Gary Ridgeways and Henry Kissingers of the world, who have absolutely no conscience. It's a blanket term used to describe people suffering from a wide variety of mental problems, the most interesting and relevant to this review being Antisocial Personality Disorder. A combination of antipathy, violently impulsive behavior, and a general disrespect for the rules of society, APD is the medical community's way of explaining that criminals are, almost to a man, suffering from a psychological defect. What does this have to do with Grand Theft Auto IV? Simple. In their attempts to make a grittier, more realistic game, Rockstar North has offered the world one of the best fictional portraits of the pure sociopath in recent memory.

The ninth installment in the long-running Grand Theft Auto series, GTA4 doesn't reinvent the wheel, nor should it be expected to. The move from GTA2 to GTA3 was as significant a leap in gameplay design as Mario's move to the '64 had been, and could even be called the birth of a new genre, if DMA Design hadn't pioneered all the core gameplay mechanics in the underrated Body Harvest three years earlier. For the past seven years, Rockstar North (formerly DMA Design) have refined and tweaked a simple trio of gameplay concepts: 1: Shoot people. 2: Steal their cars. 3: Use those cars to run other people over. GTA4 is nothing more than the latest refinement of that concept, offering only two major additions: A wonderful multiplayer mode, and a truly compelling story, replacing Bully as the company's finest.

Technologically speaking, GTA4 is a borderline triumph. While the graphics don't offer the fidelity of many other titles, and the textures are blurrier than next-generation gamers have come to expect, the game looks far better, and more importantly, performs far better than any GTA game before it. There's still the occasional "GTA Speedbump", that unhappy circumstance when a car crashes into nothing at all, and then a second later a telephone pole is drawn in, but by and large all issues of appearing scenery and disappearing behicles have been resolved, and it makes the game world seem all that much more authentic.

Authenticity is the watchword here, as the developers have gone to absurd lengths to depict a 1/5 scale (or thereabouts) depiction of New York City. It's nowhere near so exact that I'd imagine residents of New York are going to be driving by their own apartments and marveling at how well they were modeled, but it certainly has the look and feel of an actual city, one of the first in videogame history.

This push towards realism in game design has affected the missions as well, and it's a change for the better. While there are probably those out there who enjoyed the hugely pyrotechnic or otherwise outlandish missions of the last few games, I wasn't one of them, and I was pleased to see GTA4 going back to basics. Most of the missions involve driving to a location and shooting a couple of people, or shooting a couple of people while driving to a location. Every now and then I'd be asked to drive a boat somewhere or chase someone with a helicopter, but by and large I kept to simple gangland enforcing and executions.

GTA IV Screenshot

What keeps the more basic mission structure from getting stale or tedious is the level of satisfaction the combat offers. This satisfaction is due in small part to an improved targeting system, and in a much larger part to the brand new progressive animation system called Euphoria. Instead of canned actions or string-cutting ragdoll physics, enemies are now made up of simulated skeletal, muscular, and nervous systems, allowing them to react naturally when shot, recoiling from the impact of a shoulder hit, stumbling if shot while running, or crumpling awkwardly when instantly killed by a bullet to the head. It looks so good and feels so authentic that I found myself eagerly anticipating each new gunfight, so I could watch the new ways there were for my enemies to crumple and die.

Just as developers fell all over themselves to include Havok physics a few years back, GTA4's release has not doubt led to the "Euphoria" people's phones ringing off the hook. Frankly, I'll be shocked if in 18 months time there's a shooting game that doesn't use this new kind of character animation, or some variation thereof. For that reason, I almost don't want to give GTA4 too much credit for the animation—after all, soon enough almost every game will sport it—but still, based on the game's sales so far, this is going to be most people's first experience with Euphoria, and the unbridled joy it brings to people looking to shoot fictional people within the confines of their television screens.

The one place these amazing physics don't appear, however, is the multiplayer. All human-controlled characters are immune to the effects of gunfire, and can soak up bullets unaffected until their health runs out and they collapse. I understand why this choice was made, after all, if player characters reacted authentically to wounds, whoever got hit first would lose the gunfight. Despite the rest of the game's shift in that direction, it's simply not the kind of brutal realism that most people going online are looking for.

Luckily that absence of physics and a needlessly awkward method of going online are pretty much the only things wrong with the multiplayer mode, which is something of a revelation in all other respects. I don't suppose it should really be much of a surprise that the game works so well with extra human players. After all, I've been riding along with AI partners for a couple of games now, and San Andreas featured an experimental co-op mode. What is surprising is just how naturally the game's aesthetic encourages teamplaying. Going online only with complete strangers, whenever I started a team adversarial mode I always found people willing to pull their cars to the curb and let me in so I could help with the shooting. Everyone I played with just seemed to agree that not only was it more practical to have a car full of guns, it made the game more fun, as well.

Even better than the adversarial modes are the co-operative ones. Made for four players, each of the game's three co-op missions have the players teaming up to take down armored cars, rob drug dealers, and blow up boats. The greatest compliment I can give these levels is that during the single player game I found myself wishing that I could invite a friend into the game to ride shotgun on some of the more difficult missions, rather than having to rely on the always-awkward AI partners. I don't know what Rockstar has planned for their downloadable content, but so long as there are new co-op missions, I'll be buying them.

GTA IV Screenshot

While the multiplayer may be great, it's the story that really stands out in my mind. Well, not actually the story, but rather the story's main character. While the plot is the standard crime game tale of warring factions, betrayal, and revenge, Niko Bellic, the game's star, is anything but the standard issue anti-hero. Rather, he's a fully realized person. A tragic monster fuelled by nothing but hate, he's the best lead the series has ever had. Not that there's a lot of competition. GTA3 offered a mute, personalityless cipher, Vice City gave us Tommy Vercetti, a vicious psychopath motivated by an overwhelming desire to control everything around him, while San Andreas featured the most disturbed of all the characters, CJ, a self styled Robin-of-the-'hood who used claims of familial responsibility and moral relativism to convince himself that all of his mass murdering was somehow justified.

Niko Bellic is an entirely different breed of deviant in that he has almost no motivation of any kind, beyond a dedication to his cousin, and a simple desire to punish the people he feels are responsible for leaving him a hollow shell of a man. He finds himself swinging from master to master, playing both sides for his own benefit, but he never has much of an overall plan. Niko kills some people, has sex with others, and helps out a rare few, but strangely he doesn't seem to derive joy from any of it. Unlike the player's presumptive attitude, Niko never gets any pleasure from the mayhem he causes.

An entirely passive man, Niko fully believes himself to be a product of his environment. Various allusions are made to his time in the Army, and all of the atrocities he was forced to commit during the endless wars of the formerly communist republics. What makes him fascinating is that Niko has allowed himself to be completely defined by these actions—the government turned him into a criminal, so that's what he is, and nothing else. In one chilling speech, he mentions having been a slaver in passing, the way a normal person might talk about their time working at a fast-food restaurant.

Normally main characters in games are ciphers so that the player can make decisions without acting 'out of character', since there's no character to be acting out of. Here the developers have done the seemingly impossible, created a character for whom no decision would seem surprising. Even suicide seems like a natural choice for a man so bereft of any emotion. At a few of points in the game the player is forced to make what would normally be a moral choice, but here is framed in a much harsher light, with Niko being forced to choose between a side that offers cash, and a side that appeals to his sentimentality. The player isn't asked to choose between good or evil, but rather greed or narcissism. By putting the player in such an unremittingly bleak position, the developers have done something amazing, and provided the game industry with one of its most well-rounded characters, up at the top of the heap with Kiryu from Yakuza.

It's in the shadow of the story's success that I began to find the game's failures, though. The first of these problems is the game's huge tonal schizophrenia. While the game's story does everything but stand on a desk and hold up a sign that reads "TAKE ME SERIOUSLY!!!" the rest of the game's content resides squarely in the middle-school potty-humor gutter that it's been wading in for over a decade. I doubt there's anything more unpleasantly jarring in the game than listening to Niko tell the awful story of how he discovered his aunt's body after she had been raped by soldiers and tortured to death, while driving past a salacious billboard for 'Pisswater Beer'. The series's attempts at satire have always been on the weak side, but they benefited by largely being set in the past—since the GTA games were the only ones still making jokes about Reagonomics or the Rodney King trial, at least there was an element freshness to them. Or if not freshness, at least an element of being the thing that doesn't get thawed out too often. Now that the game is set in the present day, the targets they choose to take shots at are all incredibly familiar: Fox News, spam e-mail, conservative politicians who are secretly gay—they've been covered by literally everyone else, and much better than they are here.

GTA IV Screenshot

Things also get a little rough on the combat mechanics front as well. The hand to hand combat is pretty much a wash, but in the entire game the player is only forced to fistfight once or twice, and that's just so they can learn how to do it. The gun combat is definitely an improvement—finally bowing to the peer pressure of every other third-person shooter, GTA4 at long last implements a decent targeting and cover system. Aping Everything or Nothing, the targeting system allows players to lock on to enemies, and then fine-tune their aim with the right thumbstick. This lets players choose between spraying bullets in their opponent's general direction or carefully seeking out headshots, depending on their tastes. The cover system isn't quite as successful. While targeting and blindfiring work well enough, for some reason it's impossible to lean out from cover without shooting, despite the fact that every other game with a cover system allows players to do so. This means that in order to fire accurately, the player has to lock on to an opponent and pull the trigger, which initiates the 'leaning out of cover' animation. The second this animation takes can mean the difference between a hit or a miss on opponents that use cover, and if the player wants to adjust their aim, they have to do so while continuously firing, since letting go of the trigger button even momentarily will cause Niko to duck back behind cover. I can't imagine how this mistake was made—literally every other game has figured this one out, so how did Rockstar not? Do they just not want players to have a good gunfighting system?

The combat is also harmed by the fact that the enemies have no AI to speak of. Once in a blue moon an enemy will run towards or away from Niko, but for the vast majority of the time they will either stand still, firing away, or duck in and out from behind a single piece of cover. Almost no strategy is required to kill them, just a basic understanding of how to use cover and the ability to flick the targeting reticle between a number of static targets. If the Euphoria-powered animations didn't make actually shooting people such a pleasure, I'd go so far as to call the game's combat a disappointment.

There's also a problem with the size of the city. While considerably smaller than San Andreas, the last game's location, Liberty City still takes an awful lot of time to drive around. The driving is fun enough that this isn't a chore for the first dozen or so hours, but by hour twenty, when every mission asks the player to drive from one end of the map to the other, let's just say I started taking a lot of cabs, the game's helpful way of allowing the player to warp around the map in a flash.

While Liberty City is a huge, beautiful location, I was surprised by just how little there was to do in it. Perhaps because of the move towards realism in the game, Ambulance and Fire Truck missions have been removed, as have the mysterious 'packages' that seemed to litter the ground of Liberty City last time around. Gone with them are the unlockable perks. Players can't become fireproof, nor are there ever any respawning weapons available at their cribs. Luckily Vigilante Missions remain, allowing the player to clean up the streets, although for no reward beyond a sense of self-satisfaction. This seems to have been a last-minute change, though, since a line of dialogue in the game explicitly states that the police car missions should be paying, they just don't.

GTA IV Screenshot

This dearth of activities also shows up in the social networking system, which has been expanded quite a bit since San Andreas. Now Niko doesn't just have to take girls out on dates, but all of his friends as well. When the player completes certain mission lines, his employer becomes a 'friend' who will call him on his cell phone and want to hang out. This hanging out can involve getting some food, playing minigames, or going to see a show, and it takes up far more time than it really ought to. Not only because there are so many friendships that need to be maintained, but because there are so few places to hang out and do things in the city. One would think that a place like Liberty City would have a restaurant or bar on every corner, but one would be very, very wrong. Every time one of these 'dates' begins the player has to drive to pick up their friend within an hour of game time (about two minutes), and then drive them across town to someplace they want to hang out. Of course, the entire social aspect of the game can be ignored, but since these friends and girlfriends are the game's only source of helpful perks, like cheap guns, health boosts, and resetting the wanted meter, the player would be put at quite a disadvantage by ignoring them.

Perhaps the most frustrating mistake the game makes is in the car combat. When this works, it's one of the game's bright points, as passengers blast away at other cars, shredding metal, blowing out wheels, and slaughtering the occupants, but when it fails, the game is crippled by that failure. I can't understand, for example, why passengers in a car are restricted to using pistols and submachine guns, the same way the driver is—sure it makes sense that a person driving a car has just one free hand, but why can't the person riding shotgun use a, well, shotgun? A far bigger problem is that the car-chase missions are divided up into two distinct styles: Free-form and Scripted. In the free-form chases the player can shoot out wheels, run the enemy off the road, really do anything they like. In the scripted missions, the enemy car can't be destroyed until it reaches a specific point on the map where an event is triggered. Unfortunately, the game doesn't tell the player which missions are which, so more than once I found myself emptying hundreds of round of SMG fire into a car, puzzled as to why it refused to catch on fire.

Some of GTA4's problems can be attributed to the developers' desire to hold features over from previous incarnations, and the rest seem to be caused by the understandable lack of focus that results from attempting to create a truly epic game world. All of these problems are outweighed by what the game gets right, both in the superlative story it tells and the unprecedented freedom the multiplayer mode offers. The GTA franchise is a funny one. Sometimes a sequel will be a leap forward in gameplay design and overall fun (like 3, or San Andreas), but other times they'll wind up being little more than an exercise in wheel-spinning or cashing in (Vice City and the Stories titles). GTA4 is certainly a step in the right direction, and I'm really looking forward to whatever the series has in store for us next. That being said, I hope that now they've produced a new engine that they can milk for the forseeable future the developers at Rockstar North take the time to iron out some of the larger problems next time around. Oh, and while I'm hoping for things, as a longtime fan of the series and knowing how much Rockstar North enjoys going back to the well, I'd like to formally request that the next game be set either in the near-future dystopian city of GTA2, or the 'swinging London' of GTA: London 1969. Rating: 8.5 out of 10

Disclaimer: This review is based on the Xbox 360 version of the game.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

This game has gotten perfect

This game has gotten perfect or near-perfect reviews around the board. I'm glad someone finally took the time to take off their hype spectacles and give the game an honest review. It's pretty damn far from perfect, although I would still classify it as a "great" game.

I don't think it raises the bar for anything, though. If Rockstar owned and developed the Euphoria Engine it might be some feat that they implemented it. Rather, like you said, it will pop up in more and more games as time goes on. And better gunplay - which GTA has needed for a while now - is great, but it's not inventive; they just implemented a standard set by existing shooters (and somewhat half-assedly).

Probably the most disturbing thing about this game is how you're given so much money but can't actually spend it on anything... Why carry 500 grand if you can't buy a safehouse or helicopter or tank or something?

Hopefully the next game in this series will improve on the improvements and bring back the fun stuff that worked in the previous games that they inexplicably left out. Why it's realistic to murder everyone on a Most Wanted list for money but not realistic to put out fires or run a taxi part-time is beyond me.

You must not have put enough time into the game...

I agreed with everything you said up until the last paragraph. You can, in fact, do taxi missions for your Roman's taxi service. Just call him up and ask for a job. I've seen a lot of people complain about how there aren't taxi missions in this game, but I know for a fact there are since I've personally played through them.

O Danny Boy

After your controversial (to say the least) review of Halo 3, I'm surprised you have the guts to give yet another extreme (relatively-speaking) review.

I sort-of agreed with your Halo3 review, but thought you were generally nit-picking and too harsh with the score; an 8/8.5 would have been more accurate. So I now read your GTA4 review with that in mind.

Interesting character you are Daniel.

I wait with amused anticipation for the stream of abuse and counter-abuse you are about the recieve for giving this game anything less than 9.5!

Idiotic Review

The reviewer clearly just wished to stand out as the one person who didnt believe the game was perfect. He was putting his personal opinions aside in order to stand out as a reviewer. Pathetic.

GTA IV does not dissapoint!!!!

I find it crazy that people (cough the reviewer) look at what negatives they find. How can you say this game is not a major innovation in anyway? It is the first game in history to create a world that is so in depth and beleivable that it surpasses film as a medium. The innovation is not a gimmick word or phrase such as '3D' or 'unreal engine 25' or whatever, the innovation here is the detail and cohesion of everything tying in together so seamlessly. This game has single handedly given video games some self-respect respect. Games today are so diverese that it is hard to compare many, but GTA IV has blurred the line between film and games in my opinion. It is like a kick ass 5* gangster movie that you are in and happens to last anywhere between 25-100 hours.

This game is above the hype created, only people who shouldn't even be playing games can complai that they are dissapointed.

I agree with most of this.....except

I think its stupid to say that Vice City was a step backwards and San Andreas was a step forwards. I mean vice city introduced helicopters.....jumping out of the car while going....motorcycles...and a character that could actually speak. Furthermore it had a better story than three and undisputedly the best soundtrack of any of the games. You could tell there was a lot of heart put into that game. And in my eyes San Andreas was just shit....a lot of shit...but still shit....all it introduced was sucky multi player people that could ride with you and jets....and i thought the graphics sucked and the story to....

It's comical how he rates in

It's comical how he rates in 'diggs' and how his review is so off base and he's got his facts wrong as well.

I'm surprised he's allowed to even review anymore..lol

'Dig' this, already 30 sites gave this masterpiece at perfect 100, and this clown gives it a 80/100.

And iv'e seen better reviews by gamers then this joke.

(btw: is it a perfect 100? no. But it's the closest we have seen in the past 10 years)

Fanboys.

Wow, look at all the fanboys going crazy! GTA 4 is a great game! fantastic even! but not perfect and so a 10 is a little OTT, the game is still GTA with whistles and bells on, and so it deserves in my opinion a 9, 10 should be saved for the MMO where we get a mapped out version of the real world where you have limitless possibility.

IGN even stated the game was NOT perfect..but then still gave it a 10 which in my opinion devalues the score system.

He's not rating in Diggs,

He's not rating in Diggs, that would be something entirely different. For those of you who can't find the numerical score, highlight the blank space after the article. Magic!

He's trying to get you to read the content, and not just look at the score, by the way. Apparently that's not working too well, but kudos to him for trying - I personally agree with his method, if not all of his opinions.

A review written to smite fans and other reviewers.

I don't like sounding like some random whiner about a bad review for a game I enjoy but this review or more precisely its score feels like little more than a reactionary review in response to all of the 10/10s the game has gotten. Problems are maganified to sound much worse then they actually are and the cover mechanic is second only to Gears of War's.

This is further displayed by the knock on the GTA series' humor as a whole. Just because its vulger doesn't mean its juvenille and although there are some admittedly juvenille shop names the actual spoken dialogue and story are quite intelligent along the same lines as The Departed or Scarface.

Another thing I can't quite get my head around is the feverish nitpicking of the car combat. Yes you can't use a shotgun as a passenger but that doesn't make or break the game's combat while in cars also very often the game tells you whether or not you're supposed to just kill everyone in another car or whether you're supposed to pull them over by stating that you must get something from them.

This review really doesn't change anything for me, the game still rocks and is as close to perfect a game I have ever played but still it feels more like this review was written to smite fans of the game and to give the finger to other review outlets who game the game a perfect or near perfect score rather than give a clear and objective personal opinion.

Wondered how long it would

Wondered how long it would be till someone wanted to stand out by giving this an unfair review. While, like every other game out there, GTA IV isn't perfect, it's got to be the closest game to it. And what's more is that there's about 30 times as much content in this game than anything else out there, all of it being absolute quality.

8.5/10? Not the wisest burger, are we?

GTA

Edge UK gave this game a 10/10. That magazine is really harsh. They only gave Oblivion 8/10, Gears of War 8/10, Mass Effect 7/10 amongst others. Trust me if they give it 10, there is a pretty good F***ing reason to.

No game is ever going to be perfect, nothing in the world is perfect there is no such thing. Soem where down the line there is always going to be a compromise based on the technology of the day.

GTA deserves a 10 because it is such a step up in quality, and will influence many games for the next few years. Developers with games in progress will think f*** me we need to go back and do this properly and that properly etc etc. GTA has risen expectations of games in generally, nuff said!

And? Super Mario Galaxy get

And? Super Mario Galaxy get from EDGE a 10/10, too. And on this site "only" a 9/10.

nearly

To say Vice City was a step back is to ignore the huge stylistic advances made in that game. Not having played GTA4 yet IMHO Vice City is the best of the GTA3 series.

Influence games, how? What

Influence games, how? What did GTAIV do that is so revolutionary? All of its gameplay elements were existing concepts, either from previous GTA games or other games. The only thing really unique to GTAIV is its story. The Euphoria engine which makes interaction with NPCs seem more lifelike than usual is an engine that will be used by other developers. Rockstar just happened to be the first to release a game that uses it.

GTAIV does nothing that will influence games, except maybe influence developers to hire competent writers.

It is a good game. But that's about it.

Anonymous wrote: I agreed

Anonymous wrote:

I agreed with everything you said up until the last paragraph. You can, in fact, do taxi missions for your Roman's taxi service. Just call him up and ask for a job. I've seen a lot of people complain about how there aren't taxi missions in this game, but I know for a fact there are since I've personally played through them.

Except that those missions aren't available throughout the entire game, and you don't actually get anything for completing them. There is no in-game advantage besides a few bucks, and you don't get any achievements for it, either.

REALITY CHECK

In my opinion, no game deserves a 100, or a 10/10. There is always *something* that can be improved on. To give a perfect score is to be a lemming and extremely naive.

From reading some comments, it sounds like one would rather read a hyped up review than an honest one. How sad. It seems like one can't even have an honest opinion anymore without getting shred to pieces.

I remember when Final Fantasy 7 came out people were calling it the "greatest video game ever!". Is it now? Probably not. Sure, it was extremely well done, but comments like that are really childish. People need to grow up and get more realistic.

As much as I disagree with

As much as I disagree with this review, I respect the fact that you're giving an honest review, saying what you think. It's sort of like Jeff Gerstmann from Gamespot (or who used to be from Gamespot). He was my favorite reviewer.

I have not played this game,

I have not played this game, But I would have to say that this guy is telling you about it based on how he feels.... what more can you do. Granted, Some of those things are probably not so big of a deal. And granted, Ive heard some things that I loved like Parachutes and Jet pack, even tanks are gone. Which to me would be a major crime. But still, I think this guy is saying it how he feels. If you do not like what he things, then get over it. His points may be exaggerated towards how he feels, then oh well. Nothing seems to be out of place and he does bring up some good points. Why in the heavens should a person riding in a car who is not a driver not use a shot gun. Makes no sense. Oh well, still, from all accounts, this game is great.

Learn to review games!

Talk about a publicity stunt! Your review is so off balanced and you seem to pick on the small problems as if they render the game virtually unplayable! And saying Vice City was a step backwards in the series is like saying Herbie: Fully Loaded is better than The Godfather Part 1! GTA IV is the best game I've played in a long time and really blew me away. It's not perfect, but damn is it ever near! Now go back to learning what makes a game good. And btw, San Andreas' story was crap...

GTA IV does not influence

GTA IV does not influence games, it is too unique for that. GTA IV is all of the great games' influence on one game (GTA IV), all into one, mixed successfully. Saying GTA IV is 'a good game. but that's about it,' is quite underrated even for all of the game's flaws. Point out one game in this generation that is more impressive overall than GTA IV, with the right reasons of course.

Anonymous wrote: Talk about

Anonymous wrote:

Talk about a publicity stunt! Your review is so off balanced and you seem to pick on the small problems as if they render the game virtually unplayable! And saying Vice City was a step backwards in the series is like saying Herbie: Fully Loaded is better than The Godfather Part 1! GTA IV is the best game I've played in a long time and really blew me away. It's not perfect, but damn is it ever near! Now go back to learning what makes a game good. And btw, San Andreas' story was crap...

"Your review is great, as long as it completely agrees with mine."

Video game scores were killed by snot nosed punks like you. With way over hyped games, reviewers are practically FORCED to grade on a scale of 9.5 to 10 rather than 1 to 10.

Hey, I think this game is awesome, but I'm not going to shit down someone's throat for giving it a fucking 8.5! 8.5 means it's a GREAT game you dumbasses!

A lot of you mouthbreathers need to just die already. "Wah, he didn't obey my commands and give it the score everyone else did! Wah, wah!" What the SHIT does it matter? YOU ALREADY OWN THE FUCKING GAME. Go play the fucking game you shitstains.

"I think that I'm impossible

"I think that I'm impossible to please when it comes to video games....When faced with a nearly perfect game, on the other hand, I start to nitpick, and search for tiny mistakes to grouse about"

This is a quote from Daniel's Half-Life 2 review. He awarded it a fairly measly 9. I don't mind a low score if it's backed up by fairly major flaws detailed in the meat of the review itself. In GTA 4's case, however, he falls into his nitpicking trap again and, ultimately, doesn't really detail anything of major concern. Yes, the AI isn't much good, but if it was too potent, the game would be too difficult to play.

It's a jack of all trades, and it also masters a few. The fact that this is all melded into one game only furthers the reason to play Rockstar's latest.

Ultimately, Daniel, you've written a fair review but I don't think your paultry 8.5 score is backed up by the criticisms cited. I respect reviewers for bucking the norm with a fairly harsh review, but only if makes sense. In GTA 4's case, it's an unquestionably brilliant game, and none of the nit-picking should detract from this. It's just too expansive.

The reviewer is strictly

The reviewer is strictly looking for publicity. It is well known that the review with the worst score will get the site the most attention, and perfect 10/10 will get lost in the crowd. It is a shame how people put their own agenda ahead of the facts, and the fact is this game is revolutionary.

sigh

Heh, the comments to this review exemplify the pinnacle of irony. The reviewer was looking for controversy by giving the game a "ridiculous" score? Well congratulations guys, you're sure giving it to him. You all sound like the rabid Zelda fans that condemned Gamespot for its own eight point "publicity stunt" it pulled last year. I thought that the gaming community would have since moved on from such tactics but I guess it's just inevitable for anything that's popular.

Die hard fans of a game will fight for any reason to dignify its apparent close-to-godliness.

Oh and good review!

wow some people need to know

wow some people need to know what they are talkin about. NO GAME CAN BE PERFECT!!! A ten just meens the game is so much more updated or so much better than other games during this gen. and it is, because it is amazing how they have so much detail and u cant expect the best graphics because look how much is in the game. and it is disrespectful to give it a 8.5 because this game was so well designed with a great story, very realistic aspects, great detail, great voice acting and i could go on and on but i dont have the time for that but this game shouldnt get anything less than a 9.5. of course there is flaws in it but the flaws in this game is nowhere near the flaws in other games which is why it deserves a 10.

I agree the game is

I agree the game is revolutionary, it goes the extra mile in introducing in game devices such as the cell phone, t.v. and internet. All of these devices are well polished and play a very important role in the game. Not just this however, when you get in your car and take a drive you will be bound to see a car crash caused by an NPC and observe as police and EMT arrive on the scene, or a car that has broken down and the driver inspects the problem from behind the hood.

I actually agree with some

I actually agree with some of the things said in this review, particularly the part about there being not much to do in the city...for example, I finished the game with 500K and nothing to spend it on.

However, this score reeks of your typical uber geek video gamer narcissism that plagues the industry from the guys behind gamestop counters on up to the interns at ubisoft. that is understandable (partially b/c most of them are introverted social outcasts), but the rest of the insiders in the industry put that aside and has given this game its much deserved props.

Video games will never be the same after this game right here. period. and to give it an 8 out of 10!?? did somebody not get enough attention growing up?

Good review. I just

Good review. I just completed the game, and was somewhat disappointed too. It's a good game, but nothing like all the 10/10 hyped-up reviews had led me to believe. I'd give it a 8.5, maybe 9 score. (single player only, did not play MP)

The main problem with GTA IV is that so much effort had to go into creating the backdrop world, the characters and dialog - and in particular to bring them up to next-gen high production quality - that there was apparently very little room for innovation in gameplay mechanics. Yes, there were some improvements like the covering system, but overall I felt a lot more constrained during missions than in past GTA iterations where you could often approach things from different angles. In fact, for the duration of each GTA IV mission, it felt very much like an on-rails game where all my actions were anticipated already by the designers and I just had to go through the motions. Not what I look for in a sandbox game.
When not in missions, there was simply not much to do in Liberty City, like the reviewer pointed out. Bowling, darts, pool minigames get boring quick. The stunt jumps seemed much more subdued and hard to find. The internet dating thing showed promise, but there's only a handful you can actually date - might have been cooler if each date led to a set of side missions instead of just becoming cellphone annoyances.

Anyway, like I said, good game, but because so much time and effort and to bringing the production values up to next-gen expectations, the risk-taking and playfulness in the gameplay came up lacking. GTA just went from exciting independent film to soulless marketing driven Hollywood blockbuster. This review & the game revolution one are the only fair reviews I've seen.

you read a review for the

you read a review for the reviewers opinion of a game...its not a fact that ok this game is an 8 or a 10 or so on...this person seems to like it less than the usual, but i actually kind of agree, that's me, those of you who disagree that's you. stop complaining because this person didn't like the game as much as you...it seems a lot of other people here agree with this review as well, every game has mixed feelings.

Evolution of graphics

Anony Mouse wrote:

In my opinion, no game deserves a 100, or a 10/10. There is always *something* that can be improved on. To give a perfect score is to be a lemming and extremely naive.

From reading some comments, it sounds like one would rather read a hyped up review than an honest one. How sad. It seems like one can't even have an honest opinion anymore without getting shred to pieces.

I remember when Final Fantasy 7 came out people were calling it the "greatest video game ever!". Is it now? Probably not. Sure, it was extremely well done, but comments like that are really childish. People need to grow up and get more realistic.

I think it's correct to presume that games have not really "grown up", because we are always talking about evolution in terms of graphics and size rather than gameplay. Only when games have STOPPED evolving in terms of graphics will games reach a level of maturity (and art?)

Anonymous wrote: I think

Anonymous wrote:

I think it's correct to presume that games have not really "grown up", because we are always talking about evolution in terms of graphics and size rather than gameplay. Only when games have STOPPED evolving in terms of graphics will games reach a level of maturity (and art?)

My comment about needing to "grow up" was in reference to people, not games.

But anyway, I disagree with your belief that games need to stop evolving graphically to become mature or art. A perfect example is ICO or SHADOW OF THE COLOSSUS. Both very graphically intense games (for their time) but also very simplistic. For me, those two games came pretty close to "video games as art".

Ridiculous review...

As others have pointed out, this review absolutely screams that it's score is primarily a reflection of wanting to stand out as opposed to being honest. GTA IV is the best video game I've played in many years, and it's difficult to imagine how anyone that has fully gone through the game and devoted themselves to it could possibly recognize it as anything but perfect, or at the very lowest, a 9.5.

Not influential!!!!

GTA IV IS influential. It is not always about what gameplay gimmicks or engine features a game boasts that makes them influential. if you think the only progress GTA has made with games is story then you are missing the point.

The next step is DETAIL and COHESION. Rockstar has consistently lavished the game with suck immense detail and artistry in every aspect including the story to make it all appear so real. GTA IV has given games in general some self respect, don't bother telling me about the lack of stand out gameplay improvements because you are way off the mark if you think that is what this game is about.

Only a fool believes that this game will not have a major impact on the games industry. Forget the Euphoria engine because that is just one aspect of hundreds of elements to why this game is one of the best ever made.

8.5 LOL!!!!!!

8.5!!!! Any reviewer who gives this game 8.5 is in the wrong job. Yes it it partly about personal opinion but should be objective and give credit where credit is due.

Scores are mainly based on precedent set before them. I bet if you go through the list and look at other scores this site or reviewer has given around 8-9 it will be quite hilarious what games they are bracketing next to GTA IV (based on 8.5). Fact is there are not many games out there that can even be considered peers so on that basis I would expect no game on this site to have got higher than 9 if GTA only got 8.5, especially any game on the current gen.

BYE THE WAY, I CANT BLOODY FINE WHERE THE SCORES ARE ON MOST OF HIS REVIEWS TO LAUGH AT WHAT GAMES HE HAS GIVEN A SCOERE CLOSE TO GTAIV FOR?

VF5 gets 9 and GTA IV 8.5 - what a joke of a reviewer

Daniel. You have insulted the games industry by giving VF5 9 and GTA 8.5. Don't you feel really stupid? A poxy fighting game that has a few extra moves and combos compared to genre defining game and a game that pushes the games industry forward.

I can understand you saying that it is not as good in your OPINIOPN as you maybe expected, but to give it less than a standard fighting game, you have lost any self respcet as far as I am concerned. This game needs a proper review from one of your colleagues.

Anonymous wrote: Wow, look

Anonymous wrote:

Wow, look at all the fanboys going crazy! GTA 4 is a great game! fantastic even! but not perfect and so a 10 is a little OTT, the game is still GTA with whistles and bells on, and so it deserves in my opinion a 9, 10 should be saved for the MMO where we get a mapped out version of the real world where you have limitless possibility.

IGN even stated the game was NOT perfect..but then still gave it a 10 which in my opinion devalues the score system.

The problem with what you are saying is that since the game has problems, it can't get a 10/10. By that logic, no game would ever receive a 10/10 and never will, because there is not, nor will there ever be a game made that is entirely without a single problem. It's simply impossible to do.

And to me, that's what would really devalue any scoring system.

to each his own...

I knew this was bound to happen. Someone dared to not give GTA4 a perfect score and now the bashing has begun. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion. I don't really like GTA4, but then I've never cared much for GTA. I can see why people praise it though because like Tomb Raider Legend it's the first game in the series that doesn't totally suck because of control problems. I've never managed to understand what's so great about Ocarina of Time either or the first Half Life so maybe I'm just wierd, but fortunately there are still plenty of good games for me. Eternal Sonata for example, a much better game than GTA4 IMHO, but also a completely different game. Not everyone has to enjoy "open world adventure shooters" or whatever the genre is called.

Ever Heard of Freedom of Expression? Individual Perspective?

Yikes, I find it very interesting that in the online, videogame fanboy world, anyone who might try to approach a title from a different perspective, hold a different opinion, or who might just not be a part of the herd, is verbally abused. Take 2/Rockstar could crap in a video game box and every fanboy would be running around with brown around their mouths, yelling expletives at anyone who might point out they are eating crap. (And no, I am not implying that GTA IV is lousy... just trying to make a point.)

About numerical ratings-

It's natural, when looking at a numerical score, to attempt to compare that score to other scores to find some kind of meaning behind it. This is folly, however, because more often than not, comparing games to one another is an apples/oranges type of situation. I mean, if we were going to use one set of numbers for every game ever, and rigidly rate every game against that score and each other, it would be disastrous. Bosconian would be a 10, and everything else would be a 6 or under. Because, y'know - Bosconian!

I use review numbers to determine how well a game achieves the goals that A: a game sets for itself, and B: are implied by developments made in earlier games of the EXACT SAME GENRE.

Which is why I've only given a 10 to two games: Resident Evil 4 and Shadow of the Colossus, because they're the only games I've reviewed that manage to completely fulfill those goals.

In a slightly related note, to all those lovers of GTA4 who claim that it's going to influence other games for years to come. I'm wondering how, exactly, you think it's going to do that?

Obviously it can't be the Euphoria physics, because while GTA4 is the first released game to use them, there are other games in development that adopted the engine before Rockstar North, and just happen to be coming out after GTA4.

Likewise, it can't be the huge detailed world or the tens of thousands of lines of dialogue - I mean, it's not as if it's some failure of design or desire that other game worlds aren't as big and beautifully rendered as Liberty City. All of that detail and all of those characters are simply a result of the time and money that was spent on the GTA4 - time and money that other developers simply don't have. Since very few games coming after GTA4 are going to have a 100 million dollar budget or three years to spend on development, don't expect to see too many other expansive, detailed worlds any time soon.

The only way I could really see other games benefiting from Liberty City's example is if Rockstar North started licensing out their creation and letting other companies build new games set in the living, breathing world of LC. Now that's a business model that actually could revolutionize gaming.

Seriously, though - is there anything else about the game that you feel is going to influence other developers?

Oh, and if you want continue obsessing on the score, here's a brief list of other games I gave a score comparable to GTA4 to make it easier for you to insult my work: Yakuza, Urban Chaos, Hammer & Sickle, Super Paper Mario, Lego Star Wars 2, Urban Reign, Cold Winter, Psi-Ops, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, Lost Planet.

Before you ask, yes, any game with 'Urban' in the title gets an automatic 3-point bump. That's just how I roll.

Did I miss something here?

Did I miss something here? Since when was 8.5 a bad score? 8.5 - a PUBLICITY STUNT?

You got to be fucking kidding... some people take videogames WAY too seriously. This guy just gave his honest opinion, and gave a fair enough score, if one shall take other reviews into account.

Dont use the fanboy trick

DAVID C

Look just becuase someone rates a game doesnt make them a fanboy. And face it a game doesnt get a big following because it is shit.

Point is any self-respected games journalist needs to recognise quality even if he doesnt personally take a liking (a reviewers job is not about personal opinion it is about critcally analysing a game). I think that in the overall context of the game the stupid little niggles don't have any effect.

GTA IV 8.5/10, VF 5 9/10. I think that says everyhting about this reviewer. No magazine has given GTA an everage review because magazine staff are real journalists and not second rate ones that do the odd internet review. I bet you will struggle to find a review from any reputable magaize indepent or not give this game below nine.

Daniel's reaction to forum

Fair enough, I can see where you are coming from with the score comparison. And it is ones right to express his opinion.

I will however agree to disagree with argument on if GTA4 will influence future games. I and virtually all the other jounalists in the world tend to think that this average game that has shared universal fan acclaim and critical acclaim will actually have am influence in the games industry.

Yes it has a big budget. is this a bad thing? Games and movies are crossing paths hence the production levels increasing (standard for all major publishers). GTA should be judged on everything as a whole not on niggles with it such as it should had done this, it should of done that (i.e. shooting,driving, mission complaints).

As a whole and not dissecting it, GTA stands as a masterpiece of immersion, cinematic credential, artistry, technical acheivement, character, story, charm, humour, sound and sheer fun.

I respect peoples opinions, but sometimes personal preference can hinder a fair review as in this case.

I know it's been said before-

But seriously, by what criteria is an 8.5 an 'average' score? Is it below the game's average score on Metacritic? Absolutely. But is 85% an average score?

If you use the word average to describe 85%, what word do you use to describe 50%? And what do you call a 20%?

So, not only are you an

So, not only are you an attention-seeking "journalist" but you also seem to find yourself funny...

Everyone's entitled to an opinion. However, when they are clearly nitpicking and trying their hardest to cause a stir (job well done) they shouldn't be allowed to have their voices heard and put across as professional sightings. To the person comparing this to Jeff Gerstmann - please, Jeff was saying an honest opinion about a mediocre game (Kane & Lynch) - to say that GTA IV is an 8.5/10 game is ridiculous. You can't argue against that I'm afraid.

Apart from taking everything that makes a sandbox game great and polishing the hell out of it, the game introduces so much more. The outrageous depth of detail - internet, TV, relationship building, character interaction, perfect multiplayer, etc - all this will influence future action and sandbox games for years to come.

And Daniel, don't come out with that "other developers don't have the time or money to work as hard on their games" bullsh**, I have a friend who says the same and it's utter rubbish. Rockstar are just a developer willing to go the extra mile, there's not a single thing in GTA IV that's lacking, Rockstar love what they do and it really shows. There are other developers who could put as much into a single game if they wanted to but they'd rather develop 3 games at a time, or churn games out quicker - fair enough, but that doesn't mean GTA IV shouldn't be awarded extra for including thousands of man-hours of brilliant planning and graft. There's no denying GTA IV's ultra polish, ultra depth, complete longevity in single and multiplayer, stunning sound, stunning visuals - to give a game of this calibur a measly score* is just showing yourself up.

"I paid you to do a man's job, amateur"

* To everyone saying that 8.5 is a good score - in theory, yes it is. But compare this 8.5 to other games that get 8.5's. Now ask yourself "How the hell did anyone with two working hands and working eyes score this below a 9/10?"

Don't use the 'real journalist' trick

Stevo

I am wondering what a 'real' journalist is... or, I guess, only those journalists that will rate this game between 9 and 10 are considered as 'real' journalists who write for 'real' gaming magazines... is that it? I mean, do you even know what criticism is? Not everything is supposed to be an uncritical review... if you want those, go to GameSpot where they 'fire' journalists for actually having an opinion. Like it or not, the video game industry is expanding beyond the male-dominated, 15-year-old fanboy demographic... it will take the 'real' gaming magazines and a while to websites realize this. But for now all the fanboys can smile with their little brown smiles and hurl expletives at people who have a different taste in video games and might actually have different ways of considering them as works of art and who also might even think that a GTA style game is today starting to look a little old.

And if you are merely looking for opinions that will reinforce your own... why are you even reading a piece of video game criticism at all? Especially at a site called Game Critics which specifically aims to NOT be like most of the others?

It's Chow Time!

Mmmmm, mmmmmm! You sharks are going to eat well tonight!

I just looked on Metacritic and the average USER rating is--*drum roll*--

. . .

8.3 !!!

Looks like 8.5 isn't so far fetched after all, is it little sharkies?

p.s. And guess what? The first review for MGS4 is--not surprisingly--100.

To Anonymous (but which one?)

My point was not that other developers don't 'work hard', it's just that as you can't fault a small-budgeted game for not having great graphics, you can't reward a big-budgeted game for having great graphics. A game's graphics will almost always be proportionate to the amount of money spent on it. They're roughly the equivalent of special effects in movies - sure, they're nice to look at, but judging something's quality based on them is basically rewarding whoever had the most money to spend.

And are you honestly telling me that you think other games are going to include friend management? I mean, that's the part of the game that reviewers seem to agree is a hassle more than anything else. Besides which, it's just the natural extension of San Andreas' dating system (hanging out repeatedly to earn gameplay perks) that premiered three and a half years ago - and hasn't gone on to influence anyone.

In a development environment where producers are told by publishers that they can only have two minutes of CGI to tell a story, do you really think anyone but Rockstar is going to put up the money for dozens of fake websites and television shows?

Don't get me wrong, I love supplemental material - the maps and newspapers that used to come with adventure games, easter eggs to find and humourous phone numbers to call are great. That's what the radio stations and websites and tv shows are - supplemental material that add depth to the game world. But when the game you play in that world is primarily about shooting people, and the shooting is a kind of shoddy, all the supplemental material in the world won't make it better.

Yes, it's a fine caliber of game, but at the same time, it's just the new GTA game, full of the same errors that the developers have been making for nearly a decade now.

LOW SCORES DON'T MEAN SMART REVIEWS

Wow, Daniel, you get more and more arrogant each review!!!

LOOK AT ME! I'M DANIEL THE FAG! I WAIT UNTIL A LOT OF SUPER-HIGH-SCORING REVIEWS COME OUT FOR A GAME, THEN I GIVE A SHITTY-ASS SCORE IN RETURN TO STROKE MY EGO!

You gave this an 8.5 and Halo 3 a 7.0. You're a fucking joke and nobody can take you seriously. Don't even dare call me a fanboy. You know those reviews are NOT even close to what those games deserve, but you love it that little 15 year-olds jack off to you giving bad reviews for really good games.

"Oh, Daniel, you're giving a smart review just because you go against the reviews and don't give into the hype."

GTA IV (and Halo 3) are fucking incredible achievements in gaming, and your sorry arrogant ass knows it. Go kill yourself. Nobody cares that you give great games low scores.

What errors then? I think

What errors then? I think Rockstar have this nailed, I mean they created a genre and not a single other developer has managed to top a GTA game since III came out. Some have elements which are slightly better but considering the whole package, nothing comes close to the GTA series.

"In a development environment where producers are told by publishers that they can only have two minutes of CGI to tell a story, do you really think anyone but Rockstar is going to put up the money for dozens of fake websites and television shows?"

What? Well, even if that's the case, who cares? Rockstar haven't skimped out where other people would have done (regardless of time or budget). That's like saying a microwave meal is as good as a full steak dinner because the company wanted it out quicker. If I went to University and my professor said "Why have you only written 2 lines for your entire dissertation?" and my reply was "Time constraints, and I could only afford one pen", it'd be ridiculous for me to get the same grade as someone who had put all the work in.

The relationship thing is optional, so you can't mark the game down for that. And while no games have really used it since San Andreas, now that it's been fleshed out and it shows a lot more potential, people will definitely be borrowing that element. The shooting is as good as anything else in the genre, there are tiny niggles with the cover system but nothing even remotely game-breaking and the fact that it's been added is a bonus anyway. And it's effective.

"It's just the new GTA game"

Right. And how else could they have improved? It still feels like GTA (which is definitely a good thing) - the core elements are there, the great characters, the humour - but everything has been pushed forward.

I don't even know why I'm wasting my time typing at an arsehole like you, god knows how you got the job you have.

And yeah - Metacritics average user score of 8.3 is down to the awkward idiots (about 1 in 30 raters) who score the game 0.0/10 before even playing it. Or die-hard fans of Saints Row (haha)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

For more video game discussion, join our forum and become a fan on our facebook page.

About Us | Contribute | FAQ | Contact Us | Twitter | Facebook |  RSS
Copyright 1999–2009 GameCritics.com. All rights reserved.