Nega-review: Grand Theft Auto IV
"It's not like previous GTAs, or most other sequels, where there are new stand-out features that you can easily discuss and rate." (4) "GTA IV [actually] reduces the amount of activities when compared to the previous game, San Andreas. You cannot go the gym to beef up Niko's muscles. And eating a ton of cheeseburgers won't turn you into a massive, wobbly mound of lard." (3)
"You'll probably be surprised to hear GTA IV has noticeably fewer weapons and vehicles on offer than GTA: San Andreas did. ... Yes, this means San Andreas' more unusual vehicles like fighter jets, hovercraft, go-karts and jetpacks are all absent. Don't expect to be wielding chainguns, flamethrowers or chainsaws either." (4) "The world itself is smaller than the state-sized San Andreas" (7) and in general the game has "a feature list that's a step back from its predecessors." (4)
"Even though the plot line is simpler than previous GTA games, it still gets cluttered at times, with a glut of characters entering the scene; it can be tough to keep track of exactly why things are happening and to whom." (9) "There's still a clear difference between this and [even] a B-level Hollywood production. ... Every story note [is] delivered by flat, to-the-point dialog [and] we get characters over-explaining their feelings and opinions, leading to some awkward exchanges. (8) On top of that, "Niko's Serbian ... is God-awful." (3)
"Combat can be troublesome. ... When you're duking it out with enemies in confined spaces ... it can be easy to get disoriented when the camera moves around." (5) "The sometimes problematic auto-aim shooting" (1) means "you'll still die thanks to the odd lock-on screw up that has you looking at pedestrians instead of the policeman aiming up behind you." (1) Yes, the "lock-on can be a little finicky." (2) In general, "combat controls could be tighter." (1)
"Cover mechanics don't always work the way they should" either. (3) There's definitely "the occasional stickiness of cover points when trying to maneuver quickly." (7) and "times when attempting to take cover behind narrow objects (such as columns) will occasionally result in Niko attaching himself to the wrong side." (5) No, "taking cover may not always work the way you want it to." (3)
"The squirrelly driving control takes a while to master," too. (6) "Some cars in GTA4 are especially loose and hard to control when executing the kind of high-speed maneuvers required by the game. Using the handbrake to execute hairpin turns and drifts is, in general, more difficult than before, and you'll have to actually have to think about slowing down a bit before taking a tight corner." (8)
"Some of the control mapping is a little bit odd as Rockstar chose to do things its own way in some respects." (2) There's "some clunkiness in ladder-climbing and vaulting objects" (7) and "some of the other interactive features, such as shopping for clothes in several clothing stores, have an awkward interface, making it a chore to try on different looks." (8) "The lack of analogue running." is also off-putting. (4) "The analogue stick is there for a reason and having to hold the A button to run and tap it to sprint, stands out as a little archaic." (4)
"GTA4 also suffers from those little things that have always plagued the series, such as sudden pop-in of objects in the environment and the occasional repetition of car models in your immediate vicinity." (6) "The frame-rate also takes punishment throughout ... with noticeable pop-in in places." (7) "I've [also] encountered a few odd clipping issues in certain obscure parts of Liberty City" (3) and "some of the secondary characters look a bit like clunky PS2 holdovers." (8) "The distance blur is also pretty heavy. ... It's ... a little disappointing to look at a distant skyline and see nothing but a complete blur. The shadows are also distractingly grainy at times." (4) "You'll definitely notice glitches." (5)
"The continued absence of mid-mission checkpoints" is another sticking point." (7) "With missions that can take an extended period of time, and require trips to several locations, not having a save-anywhere system will turn off mainstream and casual gamers." (8) "I do wish that Rockstar had added checkpoints in the multistage missions to cut down on the grunt work of frustrating retries." (6)
"GTA IV is very much Grand Theft Auto, which means that if you didn't like the last installments you're probably going to have the same qualms with IV." (1) The game "doesn't reinvent the wheel" (9) and "the game's missions will be familiar to just about anyone who played the last couple of GTA games." (5) In general, everything is just "a little less brave and intimidating this time around." (2)
Welcome, virtual felons and virtual felon wannabes, to yet another Joystiq Nega-review. This edition continues the proud tradition cherry-picking the middling negative points from the reviews of a well-hyped game with near unanimous critical praise, and arranging those points into an utterly unfair whole. This isn't a covert way of panning the game -- far from it -- but rather a convenient way to summarize the valid negative issues that can get lost in the deafening wave of praise.
Despite the length of this review, it was actually relatively hard to pull negative quotes from most of the reviews of GTAIV. The praise about the game was absolutely overflowing, with many if not most reviews calling it the best game of the generation or, indeed, of all time. In the case of Game Informer's review, I wasn't able to pull even one negative quote, even out of context. Not one! That's the first time that's happened, and it definitely says something about the reception this game is receiving.
Sources
(1) C&VG
(2) GameTrailers
(3) ActionTrip
(4) IGN AU
(5) GameSpy
(6) 1UP
(7) Eurogamer
(8) GameDaily
(9) GamePro
Check out all our coverage of Grand Theft Auto IV!
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
T @ Apr 29th 2008 8:05AM
You know, I understand the point of the Negareview. But when you read some of those comments (especially the one about the cutbacks comparred to San Andreas), you have to wonder how it gets a 10 if they REMOVED stuff.
It's like saying Madden still deserves a 9.95 even when EA's decided to take the Packers out.
mcatrage @ Apr 29th 2008 8:10AM
Some of the features they removed (tedious stats) actually improve the game.
Demaar @ Apr 29th 2008 8:24AM
mcatrage is right, most of (if not all) of the stuff they removed was either irritating or pointless.
Excellent nega-review as always. I love these damn things :D
Sir Fidlious Wong (Zeon Defense Force) @ Apr 29th 2008 8:53AM
I think it has more to do with this being the first next gen installment. Don't worry, you're excessively bloated to the point of unfinishable for most gamers GTA will be coming around the end of the console cycle.
T @ Apr 29th 2008 9:01AM
I think my point in general is that these negareviews always bring up some very valid, yet overlooked, issues.
I'm sure they could write a pretty good one about Smash, or Madden, or Rock Band (heck, I could write a downtrodden review and I love that game)
And for the record, I haven't finished a GTA yet. I've played GTAIII and VC...and in both I got to a point where I was having more fun running around causing random havoc vs. actually caring about the story.
I have a feeling I'd get to the same point in GTAIV regardless of the bloat level.
Sir Fidlious Wong (Zeon Defense Force) @ Apr 29th 2008 9:28AM
Well, I can feel you on the completing them. Truth be told, the only two open world games I've beaten are Assassin's Creed and Saints Row. GTA, I always get to a point where frustration overrides fun and the gunplay has NEVER been good so hopefully I can finish my first GTA since the London expansion...
bigsofty @ Apr 29th 2008 9:47AM
I simply dont like it, its pre-scripted mess of a game.
Joop @ Apr 29th 2008 10:45AM
Less features does not automatically mean it's worse game. 4 versus SA is an issue of quality versus quantity in almost all aspects...guns, cars, land. I would much rather have a smaller city that's far more detailed and packed with activity than the miles and miles of empty countryside in SA.
rv @ Apr 29th 2008 10:49AM
bigsofty, that makes no sense. You can say that every game is presscripted. In fact, gta is one of the least scripted games availible, you can do whatever you like.
Him @ Apr 29th 2008 12:22PM
I also miss custom soundtracks. Sony, hurry with the in-game XMB before I get sick of the radio stations (don't worry though, there's at least a month or two before that will happen)
Javi_1000 @ Apr 29th 2008 1:43PM
thank you.. its fun but come on.. a ten.. i played the game a week before it came out.. its not amazing..
Lars @ Apr 29th 2008 2:24PM
I agree they do bring up some valid points. But I think most people will overlook those without a second thought if the game is actually, you know, FUN.
Regarding the lack of content: I'm betting that they're gonna do what everyone else is doing this gen... Make it up with DLC.
David @ Apr 29th 2008 4:35PM
@T
It's so simple-minded to believe that simply having more features is better than having less. The features that were removed were awful. The state-sized area in San Andreas also took on many more characteristics of an entire state: EMPTINESS. It's completely ignorant to look at the virtual square miles of the two games to compare them. The only meaningful space is city space, if San Andreas still has it beat, then you'd have something to say. It is also a completely misguided notion that any game can be made better by RPG chores like eating to curb hunger, and going to the gym to prevent from getting fat. I personally hated the waste of time found in the gang turf, and complaining about mission repetitiveness and complaining about that lost feature is contradictory. GTAIV cut the not only superfluous, but the annoying and awful features of San Andreas. They have taken out some fun stuff along the lines of vehicles and weapons, but against the new features this isn't very important. I don't know how anyone could not see that many of the omissions from San Andreas to IV are improvements, it's going to take more than a "yes-no" tally of features. You have to evaluate the games' features and then you'll clearly see that bad features are better left out of the sequel, it's simple really.
chetsteadman @ Apr 29th 2008 8:48PM
if EA took the Packers out of madden, it should be rated higher
T @ Apr 30th 2008 9:09AM
@ David:
It's pretty simple-minded to think that I was focusing entirely on the removed features. My overall point regarding the Nega-Review is that the "perfect" 10/10 that this game is receiving seems to be despite some issues with content, gameplay, controls, graphics, etc... Things that normally cause such "near perfect" scores between 9.5 and 9.8.
@ chetsteadman:
Yeah, I was thinking that too. Especially now that Favre's on the cover. Who knows, maybe next year it'll be Pat Summeral.
Eggy @ Apr 29th 2008 8:17AM
Wow GTA4 really sucks.
*Eggy bins game
Duffin @ Apr 29th 2008 8:22AM
I don't know about anyone else, but personally, in San Andreas, I used a cheat to turn off hunger. It was a pain to be in the middle of getting to a mission and having to stop to eat. I'm glad that isn't back in this game. Having to go to the gym and work out was annoying too since I didn't really notice any real difference to Carl's abilities, plus he looked really dumb at the maximum muscle setting with his small head and no neck.
Ted @ Apr 29th 2008 8:25AM
Seems pretty clear that they were getting worried that they couldn't keep expanding the game world... So they've started all over again with a new engine. I predict two or three games using this engine, and by the third we will be back to a game world the size of San Andreas. I'm not accusing them of laziness, as probably most of their efforts had to go into rebuilding what's under the hood. Still, I hope there are plenty of silly weapons and vehicles in GTA IV.
I also hope they have really modable PC version though, it'd be cool to be able to download some user made content.
Haggard @ May 5th 2008 8:12AM
I think a PC version, though unconfirmed is very much likely - after all, it doesn't take a lot of work to port a 360 game to the PC, and if they can sell a few hundred thousand (or even up to a million - Gears of War for Windows did) copies it'll still be profitable.
I plan to buy GTAIV on the PS3 but if they do release it on the PC I'll buy it again for the mouse and keyboard control and the improved graphics.
riggs @ Apr 29th 2008 8:28AM
sounds more like nitpicking to me.
PojoMofo @ Apr 29th 2008 10:13AM
That is exactly what it is, but that goes to show you how good of a game this is.
Co @ Apr 29th 2008 11:49AM
Actually this is one of the less nitpicky Nega-reviews I've seen. Galaxy's nega-review was more along those lines.
GTA 4 is the second most unnecessarily hyped game behind Halo 3 and it's fallout/aftermath will follow suit of that title as well.
Jagzi11a @ Apr 29th 2008 8:31AM
all of those points are completely valid, without something like this kind of review, we will end up with nothing but reviews like kane and lynch. You need constructive criticism to make the industry better. I honestly think the game needed a couple more months of polishing. I also think they cut alot out of the game due to current disk capacity confines (360). I still love the game, but i do agree, there is a bunch of stuff that could have been refined.
JPN @ Apr 29th 2008 8:35AM
""It's not like previous GTAs, or most other sequels, where there are new stand-out features that you can easily discuss and rate." (4) "GTA IV [actually] reduces the amount of activities when compared to the previous game, San Andreas. You cannot go the gym to beef up Niko's muscles. And eating a ton of cheeseburgers won't turn you into a massive, wobbly mound of lard." (3)"
These are both positives to me
Kyattsuai @ Apr 29th 2008 8:45AM
Features they left out are probably being saved for one of the 2 more GTA games we'll see this generation (pleeeeaaaase let GTA vs. Robocop be next).
xfr3386 @ Apr 29th 2008 8:47AM
What you guys don't realize is they purposefully made the game weak on release.
DLC is going to give you all you want. As noted in an earlier article on this blog they will potentially add entire cities through DLC. The days of getting a complete game for $50 are gone. Now you get half a game for $50, and have to pay $100 for the rest of it over it's lifespan.
Sir Fidlious Wong (Zeon Defense Force) @ Apr 29th 2008 8:55AM
If you READ the article you're referencing, you'd notice it was labeled RUMOR. Nobody knows what the GTA DLC will be. And likewise, they haven't denied it as timed exclusive either.
MasterInsan0 @ Apr 29th 2008 10:08AM
Actually, I see it in this case as getting a full game for $60, and then getting bonus content later for more money. Sure, there are some games (e.g. EA games) that sell DLC that should have been in the retail release, but this definitely isn't one of them.
That said, if it turns out that the content was already on the disc and you simply had to buy it to unlock it, I'll totally agree with you.
Sir Fidlious Wong (Zeon Defense Force) @ Apr 29th 2008 11:18AM
I think the reluctance towards DLC just shows a dramatic margin in consumer basis on Console versus PC. You tell a PC user you're going to bundle up some more maps, more units, and more missions in a paid premium to add to your experience, their first reaction is "Wow, so you mean you're making an expansion pack... cool." Say the same thing to a console user and they basically say "BLARG! YOU TARD RIPPING US OFF SELLING COMPOMPLETE GAMES!"
Most games ship complete. Think of DLC as a way to expand the game for cheap in ways that, if it were just held off for the sequel, would be considered frivolous.
JakubK666 (Ninja Defence Force) @ Apr 29th 2008 12:01PM
That's not true. Expansion Packs =/= 5 maps.On PC's nobody tried to charge us 5 bucks for 3 maps.We have an alternative.
If EA tried to screw us by charging for guns/maps, it would be cracked and released free within days.And even Expansion Packs get released for free(Witcher Extended Edition anyone?)
midniteslayr @ Apr 29th 2008 6:29PM
Actually, DLC is a genius marketing trick to get gamers who bought the game continue to play the game while the dev team is working on the next sequel/whatever of the game's franchise. For ~5-20 bucks, you are playing new content of your favorite game while you are waiting to play the next game in the franchise. You still get a complete game in the beginning, and you are free to play the game until you get bored with it, but if you like the game enough and you want to play different content, then buy the additional content.
And if you are complaining about the cost, think about if you had a job, and they told you that you weren't going to be paid because Joe Schmoe wants what you are working on for free. You would want to be paid, and the people who are working on the DLC want to be paid too.
s.mario @ Apr 29th 2008 8:49AM
I'm a huge San Andreas fan...I'm a little dissapointed w/ some of the things they dropped...
I loved making my character really fat, and then trying to go on dates w/ my girlfriends...funny sh**
tmacairjordan87 @ Apr 29th 2008 8:53AM
Sounds like some of these reviewers had to reach to find issues with the game. Then again the game's averaging 100/100 on metacritic so far (that's combined ps3 and 360 averages) so it makes sense there's not many problems.
Roto13 @ Apr 29th 2008 8:57AM
Fewer weapons, fewer vehicles, smaller city, and nothing new really worth discussing, and it's the best game of the generation? That's sad, considering with all of that, it wouldn't even have been the best game of the LAST generation.
minty @ May 16th 2008 2:19AM
Roto, have you not read any of the other comments? San Andreas had a bigger world, sure. But most of that was the barren countryside. And to be honest, I hated most of the RPG elements they tried to implement. Hunger in the middle of a fucking mission? No thanks. As for the weapons, it's a new engine, give Rockstar a break.
jynxycat @ Apr 29th 2008 8:58AM
'Niko's Serbian ... is God-awful." (3)'
Funny, every other preview/review of the game says he's probably the best anti-hero in a video game ever.
el serpiente @ Apr 29th 2008 9:08AM
I think they meant his spoken serbian. Not the character itself.
T @ Apr 29th 2008 9:39AM
Above post is correct. The Serbian comment is referring to Niko's fake accent. I've seen that mentioned in more than one review.
nightmare452 @ Apr 29th 2008 9:00AM
I like it that they removed some things from the game.
San Andreas was a little to much for my taste, but in reality, do you really wanna do all that stuff, I personally just wanna run around and not have to worry about how my character look or how many weapons I can have, as long as the basics for unalterated fun are there. I'm not playing GTA to play a sims game, like I don't play Halo to play some "insert RPG genre description here".
Games are for fun, and I love that reviewers are pointing out the bads of a 10/10 game instead of telling us its just perfect. No reason to follow or read you review if you don't give me both sides.
waynski1457 @ Apr 29th 2008 9:04AM
I've been waiting for this. Thank you Joystiq! You've made my wait for the game that much easier!
Maverick Saturn @ Apr 29th 2008 9:05AM
Rockstar left lots of stuff out deliberatly and some unintentionally.
Nobody expected the first installment of GTA in the new gen to have everything we so desired. But then, GTA3 was exactly the same, remember. Liberty city always introduces the series, Vice City adds to it, and San Andreas provides the climax.
Vice City 4 should I say will give gamers a larger city, more vehicles etc, and San Andreas should it come around will be even better, by then, Rockstar would have fully learnt how to harness the power of both consoles and can release a game that stands out more.
However, Rockstar has done it again, first GTA ruled, GTA3 made us realise why we loved GTA in the first place, and GTA4 does it again, shifting aside all other current games as it stands proudly in the spotlight.
I have only seen the likes of Gears, Bioshock, COD4, Mario Galaxy and Smash Brothers score this high this gen, and GTA pushed even them aside.
This is a damn good year for Take 2!
Maverick Saturn @ Apr 29th 2008 9:08AM
oopsie daisy, oh and Halo 3 did well as well, can't forget Halo 3.
MasterInsan0 @ Apr 29th 2008 10:13AM
While they might go with the same pattern, it definitely won't be Liberty City->Vice City->San Andreas again. People would flame them like crazy for rehashing their cities. Going back to Liberty City is fine--after all, it's been the main city in the game since its inception. Trying to recreate the glory of the PS2 days by following the exact same pattern would just be lame.
Sir Fidlious Wong (Zeon Defense Force) @ Apr 29th 2008 11:20AM
I'd say it's time to return to the 1960's London...
But let's do it without the Austin Powers references you KNOW everyone will be looking for.
JakubK666 (Ninja Defence Force) @ Apr 29th 2008 12:50PM
Now with realistic suburb generator.Spend countless hours trying to navigate your way out of the huge set of similar streets!
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Heathrow,+Hounslow&ie=UTF8&ll=51.458687,-0.361691&spn=0.018664,0.040169&t=k&z=15
Here's for the close-up: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Heathrow,+Hounslow&ie=UTF8&ll=51.460268,-0.36301&spn=0.002333,0.005021&t=k&z=18
I
birdguy @ Apr 29th 2008 9:24AM
tell me how a game that is pretty much the same as all other GTA games, with better graphics and better story and better overall construct, if-you've-played-it-before, you know what you're getting, deserve to be the best game of the generation, 10/10 from virtual every reviewer?
i don't deny it deserving to be one of the best, but when there is no significant innovation, it doesn't deserve to be a 10/10 game.
i think this is a case of the hardcore GTA gamers (who make up the reviewers) trying to take a piece back from the casual gamers who've been dominating the sales chart and the mainstream media
tmacairjordan87 @ Apr 29th 2008 9:28AM
You don't think GTA's multiplayer is innovative?
Hell if nintendo games and halo can get away with over-inflated scores why can't this?
ThePremierAssassin @ Apr 29th 2008 9:31AM
I'm just as confused as you are bird...
Seriously I know this game will be great. But I don't think its worthy of a 10...
Especially from IGN? Wasn't the last time they gave a 10 to Lengend of Zelda?
We're equating GTA IV with OoT? Thats ridiculous...
I mean I can see MGS4 or some other big game being worthy of a 10. The trailers alone for MGS4 look like they've made by a movie studio trying to win an Oscar.
Oh well I guess I just don't see it. If it keeps Rockstar out of EA thats fine and dandy with me but I don't think the scores its getting are really deserved.
MasterInsan0 @ Apr 29th 2008 10:18AM
I haven't even played GTA4, but I think you dismiss the power of balance too quickly.
A well-balanced game that does nearly everything right, even if it doesn't innovate like crazy, can still deserve a 10. Games like Gears of War and BioShock, both of which don't really innovate in any significant way, are still worthy of high scores.
I think even deeper than that, though, is the expectation of a 10 game to be absolutely perfect. The problem is that there will never be an absolutely perfect game. So, either we call 9 the maximum score and leave 10 there for a comparison, or we lower our expectations overall and allow 10 to be used on awesome games.
Sir Fidlious Wong (Zeon Defense Force) @ Apr 29th 2008 11:32AM
So let me get this straight, refinement and overhauling of a formula (don't kid yourself, kiddies, GTA has been fixed in ways you wouldn't even care to understand) that's been a tried and true performer should be knocked down a couple pegs just because it's been done before? Nevermind the fact that ANYTIME a new genre first makes it's debut it's often the most unplayable piece of shit ever (read: music peripheral gameplay debuted with Beatmania who's scoring system is STILL fundamentally flawed). It's time spent in that genre that expands it.
So if they expand and refine what we perceive as a given genre, than no new ground has been tread and the curse of the demand of innovation, whether shallow and unfamiliar to the player base (Bioshock = System Shock 2) or fundamentally flawed and shallow or dare I even say it, broken (Wii Sports = XaviX), then this game SHOULD take hits on it's review scores?
I suggest an alternative. A world in which a game is judged solely upon being it's own game. If it can tread the same ground yet refine that path to pure glory tried and true, no harm should be inflicted upon it's scores. Nay, we should look upon it as an evolutionary process rather than revolutionary. And should we demand Rockstar North should suddenly be exempt to the very same pass we give Nintendo, Sony, Blizzard, among countless others, where exactly is that deemed fair.
Innovation is fine and dandy but means fuck all if the game sucks. And if nobody improved upon the original innovation, the industry wouldn't be where we are today.