Wednesday, May 14, 2008

GTA 4: initial impressions

I'm finally back. Sorry for the long hiatus, but I was staying with a 90-year-old and, like most 90-year-olds, she doesn't have internet. Life without internet (or even a computer!)... I could hardly remember what that was like. Really, it's not so bad. Try it sometime. It's like camping. ;)


Anyway, I picked up GTA IV last week and thought I'd offer my initial impression of the game.

I haven't played it in a while. Instead, I've been playing Call of Duty 4. That's partially a testament to how great CoD4 multiplayer is, but it also reflects my relative boredom with GTA IV. Honestly, I'm wondering if I should have bought it or just saved my money for the plethora of other great games being released this year (two of which I've already pre-ordered). If you haven't seen Zero Punctuation's review yet, you might want to watch that before reading further. Like most of his reviews, this one mentioned many of my own thoughts.

I both like and dislike the realism. I certainly love it in the visuals. Driving in the rain or fog is a thrill. I like the gritty story. However, I agree with most of the points Zero Punctuation made.

Being able to go bowling, play darts or play pool with another character is great. For a sandbox-focused game, more options is good. But Rockstar made a mistake by having those characters call Niko on his phone. That makes the world seem more real, but it also deters the player from enjoying the sandbox by constantly turning the player's focus toward the linear content. It's partially a problem of pacing. Sandbox adventures (meaning small series of explorations that the player subconsciously connects into stories) take time to develop, and the player needs time to become immersed in that exploration. The invitations to hang out by Niko's companions disrupt that exploration and prevent the player from connecting happenstance events into personal stories. There's not enough undisrupted time to wander through the sandbox and find one's own crazy series of events.

The TV channels are funny, but why do I have to sit in my apartment to watch? The billiards, darts, and bowling could have been designed so that the player could watch TV between turns. I'm a fan of world-type games, but who wants to roleplay a couch-potato? The TV stations should have been enjoyable while doing other things, as the radio stations are. There was more humor on the airwaves of early GTA games, but the music is still good. It would be nice if the radio turned down/off automatically when Niko answers his cellphone, but that's the sort of attention to detail that's often lacking in GTA IV.

The vehicle handling is awful. In this case, the move toward realism was a very bad idea. There's nothing quite like racing creeping away from cops in second gear because your car can't handle turns at higher speeds. This is how your grandma would evade police. Perhaps Dukes of Hazard -style chases emerge with faster cars later in the game; but if that's the case, shouldn't driving be fun in the beginning of the game, too? Driving in older GTA games was a blast, but not so in this one. And wouldn't it be more fun if passengers responded to wild driving and accidents more like those in the intro scene of The Darkness demo than like old Miss Daisy yelling at you to slow down? This is GTA, afterall -- players should be encouraged to act crazily, not like prim ninnies.

The control scheme for gunfighting on the 360 is strange. There doesn't seem to be any reason the typical FPS setup wouldn't work, except for shooting while driving. And in that case, shooting while driving is a chore as it is, and should have been done differently. Wouldn't it be more fun to let a companion NPC or an AI for Niko handle the driving or shooting controls while I handle the other? Wouldn't a close-camera chase or gunfight like that be more fun anyway than combining the two into less visceral, less fluid experience?

I hate for this early-glimpse (many hours of play) review to all be negative, so let me reiterate that the visuals are impressive, the story is good, and add that pressing "B" while driving to activate a cinematic camera is an awesome idea (too bad Microsoft still stupidly fails to offer Xbox 360 gamers the ability to take screenshots). The bowling, darts, and (especially) pool are all extremely well designed, though I do wish pool and darts included the same swinging use of the thumbstick that bowling does (to add that visceral feel). The physics is great, but more for its applications to animation (pedestrians moving and getting knocked around, vehicles colliding, etc) than applications to gameplay (driving, gunfights, etc).

GTA 2 and Vice City were better games. They let the player off the rails immediately, kept the pace up, allowed wild and silly fun while wandering every which way, and strived to be over-the-top in gameplay more than in libertine shocks (ex: yes, the hookers in GTA IV are funny, but the production time would have been better spent on further dynamics in combat and driving gameplay -- i.e., content that improves the game's lifespan / replayability).

I'll put more hours into GTA IV at some point. But my early impression is that Saints Row is as good, and Saints Row 2 might end up being a better game. Hold out for that one, if you haven't already bought GTA.

I'm looking forward to trying out the game's multiplayer modes. Perhaps that's where GTA IV really shines... though that would be strange, considering that the GTA series has always been about the single-player sandbox.

9 comments:

  1. "The invitations to hang out by Niko's companions disrupt that exploration and prevent the player from connecting happenstance events into personal stories. There's not enough undisrupted time to wander through the sandbox and find one's own crazy series of events."

    The invitations can be ignored. You can even turn your phone off, totally suspending the game's campaign mode until further notice.

    This criticism makes no sense.

    "The TV channels are funny, but why do I have to sit in my apartment to watch?"

    You don't have to watch at all. For people that want to, it's there. For people who don't, it can be safely ignored. This is another criticism that simply doesn't make sense.

    "The billiards, darts, and bowling could have been designed so that the player could watch TV between turns."

    How is that any different? Isn't your complaint that you don't want to sit passively while playing an interactive title? So why would you sit passively in between turns instead of skipping to your next? Is it somehow preferable to watch a show in disjointed, 30 second chunks, rather than all at once?

    "It would be nice if the radio turned down/off automatically when Niko answers his cellphone, but that's the sort of attention to detail that's often lacking in GTA IV."

    Huh? The radio does turn off automatically when Niko answers his phone.

    Given how off-base some of these criticisms are, it looks like its your attention to detail that is lacking. ;)

    Seriously, I can see criticizing GTA4 for lack of evolution compared to GTA3; the gameplay's scope has necessarily been scaled back during this transition to a brand new engine on next gen hardware. But the very reason the scope is reduced is because the game now has so much more detail and polish. I couldn't think of a more ill-founded criticism.

    "The vehicle handling is awful."

    Clearly this a matter of taste, because I think the driving is the best thing about the game. I love driving games, playing everything from hardcore sims (LFS, rFactor, etc. with my Logitech G25) to arcade games (NFS, Burnout, etc.), and those that lie between (Fortza, Gran Turismo, etc.). GTA4 strikes the best balance between simulation and arcade in anything I've played since Rallisport 2.

    The bikes, on the other hand, are shit.

    "There's nothing quite like racing creeping away from cops in second gear because your car can't handle turns at higher speeds. This is how your grandma would evade police."

    If you have to drive like a grandma in GTA4, you need to... get better. Honestly. ;)

    "The control scheme for gunfighting on the 360 is strange. There doesn't seem to be any reason the typical FPS setup wouldn't work, except for shooting while driving."

    On that I agree. If this had traditional 3PS controls, it would be a better game. The noobtastic autocentering camera is retarded. But that's nothing new. Controls are obviously a blind spot on GTA's design staff. That said, the controls in GTA4 are much better than any previous version.

    "And in that case, shooting while driving is a chore as it is, and should have been done differently."

    I wouldn't want the car to drive for me, and there's not really anything else they could have done. Design is compromise, man. If you want to shoot from the car without driving, get online.

    "I'll put more hours into GTA IV at some point. But my early impression is that Saints Row is as good"

    I couldn't disagree more. It's kinda tragic, really, that the million+ man hours that went into making this title as detailed and polished and beautiful as it is, can go totally unappreciated by some. Gorgeous smoke, fire, weather, facial animation, lip syncing, vehicle damage, etc. Incidental details everywhere like barrels that leak when you shoot them, chunks of cement blowing off pillars, etc. Greatly improved AI, physics, animation blending, etc. This new engine is a fucking marvel.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Eric had some valid points there Aaron & I think initial impressions of games can be misleading...I thought on first play that GTA IV was too dark but I just used the brightness option to set to how I like it.

    How are you finding the game now?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I had forgotten about being able to turn off the phone. I haven't tried it yet, and that probably does eliminate the problem I mentioned. I have to admit, I feel stupid for forgetting it.

    Yes, the TV can be ignored, but it could have entertained more players by mixing it with another activity. A TV placed just above the pool table or bowling alley would get much more viewing. It would also improve those mini-games by filling in for the conversation that usually accompanies such activities in real life (and is really half the point of those games).

    The radio does not turn off automatically when Niko answers the phone. If it did, I wouldn't have turned the music off completely in the options menu. Perhaps it turns down, but not enough. And perhaps it's an option that can be toggled... I'll look for it next time I play.

    My main gripe about GTA IV isn't the scope, it's the style... and I'm not talking about the visuals. The gameplay simply didn't feel as wild and free as early GTA games. Granted, San Andreas wasn't as good as Vice City either, and I didn't play GTA 3, so perhaps they've been slowly morphing the series into what it is now. Whatever the case, it wasn't as fun as Vice City or GTA 2 during my initial experience. I'll pick it up again at some point, in which case maybe it'll grow on me.

    haha, I'll try to get better at driving. ;)

    Yes, design is compromise. However, compromise wasn't necessary with the driving-shooting combo. I can see how some gamers would find the two together to be more fun, but I would think more would enjoy the simpler and more fluid experience of driving or shooting (whichever suits that particular gamer). The Halo series made the player choose one or the other for good reason.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "compromise wasn't necessary with the driving-shooting combo"

    Sure it was!

    In GTA4, you're free to shoot on foot, while driving a car, or as a passenger of a car. You suggested they disallow one of these freedoms, simply because it's hard and might frustrate some players. In other words, you're suggesting they compromise realism and freedom for the sake of what I'll call "casual gamer friendliness".

    I think the decision they made -- let the player drive and shoot, difficulty be damned -- represents the *least* amount of compromise.

    "The Halo series made the player choose one or the other for good reason."

    What is that good reason? It's certainly not realism; you don't need two hands to drive, especially if you're not a Spartan.

    In Halo, on-foot controls and vehicle control are the same: left stick for forward/back/strafing movement, right stick for aiming/steering. This system suits Halo because the game has vehicles that can strafe and/or fly and/or have guns mounted on the front. They could have come up with a unique control scheme for the Warthog to free up the right joystick for aiming the gun independently of vehicle movement, but then it's controls would have been inconsistent with the other vehicles. So they compromised the ability to shoot while driving for the sake of maintaining intuitive, consistent controls.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The difficulty of handling driving and shooting at the same time is an issue, but it's not the main one for me. You're right that Halo includes similar controls. I'm thinking mainly of the player's focus and perspective.

    Handling both can be good chaotic fun, but handling just one at a time enables a more visceral experience (more world-focused, less arcade) and the possibility of a closer camera perspective. The further out the camera, the more distant the tone... the more they're objects, rather than characters. The Halo Warthog experience didn't use a close camera, but it did help focus the player's attention by not spreading the player's concentration too far.

    What I'm suggesting isn't better; just different. But with GTA IV, I guess the realistic, gritty feel of the visuals, physics, and story make me want a more focused and less chaotic experience in the driving-combat. The style I'm talking about just seems to fit better in GTA IV. Vice City was more arcade, so the driving-shooting combo makes more sense in that game.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "The radio does not turn off automatically when Niko answers the phone."

    I meant to say it turns down.

    "Perhaps it turns down, but not enough."

    It's adequate for me. *shrug*

    "Yes, the TV can be ignored, but it could have entertained more players by mixing it with another activity. A TV placed just above the pool table or bowling alley would get much more viewing. It would also improve those mini-games by filling in for the conversation that usually accompanies such activities in real life (and is really half the point of those games)."

    I can see that. Another thing that would have been nice is if you could turn your TV on while in your safehouse without having to sit down, so it could just be on in the background (like it often is at home).

    "handling just one at a time enables a more visceral experience [..] What I'm suggesting isn't better; just different."

    It sounded to me like you weren't suggesting an alternative so much as suggesting that something be removed. The game currently lets you (1) drive a car, (2) shoot while riding as passenger seat, (3) shoot while driving. So I don't know what to make of comments like:

    "I can see how some gamers would find the two together to be more fun, but I would think more would enjoy the simpler and more fluid experience of driving or shooting (whichever suits that particular gamer)."

    You can already do #1 and #2. Why is the game improved by *removing* #3? If you don't like shooting while driving, don't do it. There aren't any missions that really require it (that I can recall).

    "the realistic, gritty feel of the visuals, physics, and story make me want a more focused and less chaotic experience in the driving-combat"

    The 'chaos' of driving combat is purely a factor of player skill. For some it will be impossible, for others it will be 'chaotic', and others will just find it challenging and fun. It's just inherently difficult to manage throttle/steering/aiming at the same time, especially when you don't have foot pedals for throttle. But again, you don't *have* to do it at all.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have a lot of trouble ignoring distractions during conversations, so maybe it's just me.

    There was a mission in which I had to case a car down and seemingly had to shoot to stop it.

    Thanks for the responses, in any case. You're probably right on a lot of points, and I'm not particularly proud of this early review.

    I've loaned my copy of GTA IV to a friend for a couple weeks. He doesn't read my site, has a different playstyle than me, and doesn't analyze games as he plays like I do (i.e., he's more of a regular gamer). I'll ask him what he thinks at some point and post his thoughts here.

    ReplyDelete
  8. well i have played gta3 and vice city 2 times each of them but when san andreas came out it was a big disappointment for me...the reasons doesn't matter now because in gta4 they did it again. Not enough wildness, not crazy enough, still a good story and let me tell you something: do you remember that silly style of walking sideways sure you do and you know why? because is like a brand unique, charming in his involution, but that's all about that's the beauty, the reality isn't so why make all that effort to look and feel more real? don't you miss the shine streets of vice city? that pink theme, or blue in gta3, i surely do..
    the driving style was FUN was great because in a real situation you could never drive like in gta vc or gta3. there is an expresion in my country when soneone is driving cray.."do you think you're on gta or what" now with is realistic style the fun has gone!! More of that the chase camera SUCKS BIG TIME (pc vers) if i run from police i supossed to take many turns left, right left etc but the camera stay ahead for few seconds i cannot see if a police car is just around the corner or if there's an obstacle in my way!!! that was not present in gta3 or vice city.
    I hope somebody will hack the controls on the cars and make the camera like is supposed to be otherwise this gta4 it will be a pale shadow of what was gta3 or VC or just gta generaly speaking.
    Doesn't matter the walking is better the car handling is more real I want my sweat imperfect GTA back!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  9. If you don't know how to drive properly, don't blame it on the game.

    Have you ever tried taking a sharp turn in 3rd gear in real life?

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.