"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













(Page 1) Reader Comments
It's like saying Madden still deserves a 9.95 even when EA's decided to take the Packers out.
Reply
Excellent nega-review as always. I love these damn things :D
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.
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.
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.
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 bins game
Reply
Reply
I also hope they have really modable PC version though, it'd be cool to be able to download some user made content.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
These are both positives to me
Reply
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
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.
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?)
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.
I loved making my character really fat, and then trying to go on dates w/ my girlfriends...funny sh**
Reply
Reply
Reply
Funny, every other preview/review of the game says he's probably the best anti-hero in a video game ever.
Reply
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.
Reply
Reply
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!
Reply
But let's do it without the Austin Powers references you KNOW everyone will be looking for.
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
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
Reply
Hell if nintendo games and halo can get away with over-inflated scores why can't this?
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.
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.
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.