NY Times gives Game of the Year honors to GTA IV

I came into the game with a total GTA experience of 10 minutes playing GTA3 on my cousin's PS2.

It starts first, by introducing you to an obnoxious character that you want to shoot. Then, it places you into a realistic game world where you can't have fun while getting from point A to point B without 2 cop cars chasing you there, making you overshoot point B entirely. After that, it gives you an okay combat system, nothing great, but not bad either. Later on, you start realizing that they sincerely tried to put a good story into the game, but fell flat on their faces with characters you become attached to like a hostage with a bomb on their back. Even further on, while having zero fun getting from point A to B, the game mucks up the paths the cars take, and cause a roadblock at a tollbooth. You have to drive fast through the booth to alleviate this problem, thus ending up getting chased by cops. Then you have to deal with the story again.

If you haven't given up on the game by that point, you might take it online, experience some horrendous lag, until you finally find a smooth running game with some friends. Which is fun for about 5 hours as you drive a bus around town causing havoc, or try to launch a car off a ramp onto a 50 foot tall building.

It's hated because it's the same old GTA as before, just with added annoyances. If you've never played one before, you may enjoy it, but you won't be as addicted to it as people were with the first GTA games (the 2D versions).

Aside from the now mundane shooting people and blowing stuff up, you've got to take your friends out every 15 minutes to play a 20-minute minigame. If you don't, they'll start to dislike you, which can have an impact on missions and the story.

They're just not trying. They take the same old GTA game and give it a new hat, and call it a new game. GTA used to be fun because it was a radical shift from other games out at the same time. They haven't added any new gameplay elements, resulting in the game being a massive yawn.

The only area where they've tried to change the game is the multiplayer arena, but that's just as little fun IMO. It would be better if multiplayer was like single-player - so you start as a newcomer to the city, get paid to do missions for people, and earn enough to start a gang and give other newcomers missions. Then, while you're head of the gang, you can go on missions to avoid assasinations hired by other gang leaders and stuff like that. People battle it out for control of the city, then send people to another city to try take that over...etc.

"It's hated because it's the same old GTA as before, just with added annoyances. "

Disagree, it's not the same old GTA, and for me that was the problem. It was less. Much less.

I do think the problem for most is that it *wasn't* the same old GTA, they removed anything they considered to be unrealistic (i.e. fun) and completely focused on the story, once that's said and done, there's little reason to continue playing the game.

Again, I have to say that I did actually enjoy the story but the majority of the fans do not play these games for story and character development.

They completely failed to understand their audiance and deliver what they want. Saints Row 2 is closer to what GTA IV should have been.

I've been reminiscing for days now about all the glorious bits in the softball episode thanks to you.

I salute you.

That episode is the start of the Simpsons golden age.

The hype was largely running against Fallout 3, i imagined. Certainly among the dedicated fans of the earlier Fallouts, who derided it with the now-famous descriptor of "oblivion with guns" until the game proved itself to be a worthy successor

I have to say that fallout 3 is not nearly as good as it should have been. The original fallouts are my favorite games of all time -- but the horrid combat, the overly reused and bad voice acting, and downright disgusting character animations have so far ruined the experience for me.

A lot of people still love Oblivion, but once you spend ~200 hours in a world it begins to wear on the player. The MMORPGS get away with it because the player can interact with other players and that creates a dynamic environment. Oblivion creates a wonderful facade in that regard - stocking the world with a great deal of NPCs that can serve as stand-ins for PCs in an MMORPG - but the reality is that, eventually, you run out of things to do.

My Oblivion save file clocked in at 198 hours and 43 minutes (which means I was probably closer to 210 or 215 hours of actual in-game time) ovr the course of nine months and I don't regret any of those hours... but I'm not going back to it because I'm done with it (not because it was no longer hyped).

Here's where my love part of the love-hate relation ship kicks in.

You see the problem is, it could've been a great game.Game of the last few years in fact.If only Bethesda bothered to put some good writing into their game. Go to any forum that might have a Fallout 3 discussion on it. What criticism do you see? People saying that VATS is a 'fuck you' button and pretty much a cheat? People calling out on the sub-bar RPG and FPS elements? People getting pissy over Super Mutants and Raiders withstanding multiple headshots? Fuck no! It's always the same mother fucking story. Ending,Enclave,Power of the Atom,Main Quest.It would be acceptable if it was a new game, but for a sequel of what's considered to be the best RPG ever, it is a fucking joke.Really, if they hired BioWare to do the job I'm sure that even the biggest hater community like NMA would give this game a better chance.

One can only hope BethSoft will learn from their mistakes when making F4.

To the people who say they don't like IV because it's not as big as SA or there is not as much shit in it need to wake up and realize that this is the first installment in the new arc.. SA was basically an expansion pack for an existing engine, all they had to do was add more shit and a story.

For GTA IV Rockstar built the best video game engine to date plus everything else that was need for the game, just be patient you will get your jetpack, tanks and love handles you ungrateful twarps.

Can I get an "Amen"?

So making a game that is inferior to their last last-gen game is acceptable because their last this-gen game is going to be of equal quality to that last last-gen game?


... hmm, I disagree.

Hyams, I think you just made my brain implode.

I can't say I agree, I don't even really care for GTA IV's engine all that much.

Hyams If you are implying GTA IV is overall inferior to the GTA III's Euphoria must have no effect on your impression.

GTA III was my favorite (the only one I truly loved of the 3D entries). It was a pretty full featured game that managed to set new standards.

GTA IV is by far my least favorite (really, the only one I abhorred of the 3D entries). It was a cookie cutter technical overhaul of already archaic last generation standards (We have analogue sticks... Why the hell do I have to keep tapping a fucking Run Button?!?!?) that managed to strip everything positive advancement to the series/genre implemented in the last major 3D entry in favor of adding in unprecedented amounts of realism in the form the most putrid and vile real-world social-technological breakthrough of the last four decades: Mobile Phones and the Wankers who never stop using them!

If this is the foundation for an ever increasing in quality trilogy, they have a hell of a lot of work to do for part 4.33 if they want me to blindly throw away $60 again.

Rabble Rabble Rabble.

"GTA IV is light years ahead of any other game in 2008"

It sucks ass... as does your taste in games.

there's a run button or really run faster because the pace with just the analog won't always get you out of trouble. they made it so you'd get tired from using it but if you tap repeatedly you go longer.

Yeah, the characters and writing in GTA IV are fantastic and memorable. That's what made the game for me. Personally, I'd give the nod to Fallout 3, but GTA IV is a fine choice. I'm actually a bit bummed most of the people whining in this thread don't identify what their GOTY is.

Finishing it felt like a chore.

It was a good game and I have no problem with it an about 5 others winning GOTY because it's up to people with individual tastes to vote. I wouldn't mind if Gears 2, GTA IV, LBP, MGS 4 or Brawl won the award. You could probably throw in Fable 2, Resistance 2, Mario Kart, Prince Of Persia, Far Cry 2 and Left 4 Dead, Dead Space, COD WAW and you would at least have an argument.

what's my point?

Great games across every platform and no matter what game wins people will still complain about it. There were so many great games (especially considering the DL titles) across all the home platform consoles that it could go done as the best year in gaming history.

I have just as much fun playing top down or side scrolling shooters on PSN as I do playing Resistance 2.

Saint's Row 2 co-op is the most fun I have had gaming all year. I could see how single player could be meh, but going through the entire thing with a friend was just amazing fun.

While it falls short on many technical aspects the fun factor kept me coming back. That said, if you do play SR2 check out the production of the cut scenes. Graphics aren't great but 'camera work' is great.

No More Heroes, GOTY 1994!