Why do alot of people hate GTA4?

  • 61 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by DaveyBoy123 (2216 posts) -

I honestly don't see why people say it's dissapointing, and a bad game in general.

I think its pretty fun. What do you think?

#2 Posted by bostonkid24 (6 posts) -

Thats stupid. Its a good game

#3 Posted by DaveyBoy123 (2216 posts) -

Thats stupid. Its a good game

bostonkid24
I agree, but ive seen alot of "worst 5 games" threads and alot of people have GTA4 somewhere in there, so i just wanna know what people dont like about it
#4 Posted by nick_manthe (471 posts) -
I've also wondered that
#5 Posted by mitu123 (154649 posts) -

It's not San Andreas 2.

Anyways, I liked the game, but it was a serious GTA with less features and content from other GTAs, almost feels like a remake of GTA III.

#6 Posted by mmielnik (471 posts) -

Story was terrible, characters had bad fake accents, no customization of cars or clothing, lack of stuff to buy, cant fly planes, you cant buy houses, and being confined to a city after having an entire "state" to play in in San Andreas. Well this is why i didnt like it.

#7 Posted by DaveyBoy123 (2216 posts) -

It's not San Andreas 2.

Anyways, I liked the game, but it was a serious GTA with less features and content from other GTAs, almost feels like a remake of GTA III.

mitu123
Fair enough. Even if its not SA2, i found Niko to be VERY likable and i loved his story, by the end i really felt sorry for him.
#8 Posted by nick_manthe (471 posts) -
I also don't get why people like SA better then 4
#9 Posted by Gen007 (10955 posts) -

i loved it and how they beefed up the GTA exp in most areas the MP is decent the story was pretty good and the graphics are great. Idk why people hate on it either but hey all great games have many haters it just comes with being the best i guess. Only thing that disapointed me about GTA4 was lack of planes because i used to love flying them in san andreas but flying helipcopters is still fun.

#10 Posted by seankane (4076 posts) -

Its not a bad game.

It just doesn't have that pure fun that San Andreas had.

Too much attention to unimportant details ruined it, if you ask me. I'd much rather have had a jetpack, or a driving tests or anything rather than the stupid Internet to waste your time on.

And all thosecompletely pointlessalley's? Why?

There's just so much that San Andreas had that GTAIV didn't, and there's no excuse for it. All the things that GTAIV added didn't help the gameplay, other than thecover system.

Also, the environment became boring.There was slight differences here and there, but going from city to desert to suburbs or whatever inSan Andreas wasgood fun.

The multiplayercould have alsobeen so much better.

It was just disappointing in so many ways. It felt like they focused too much on setting and stupid details, than on making the game really FUN.

And to add, I also didn't like how the game had a 'blurred' look to it. In San Andreas, you could turn that off, but not with GTAIV. It made the game look bad, if you ask me.

#11 Posted by Toxic8 (1653 posts) -

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

It's not San Andreas 2.

Anyways, I liked the game, but it was a serious GTA with less features and content from other GTAs, almost feels like a remake of GTA III.

DaveyBoy123

Fair enough. Even if its not SA2, i found Niko to be VERY likable and i loved his story, by the end i really felt sorry for him.

I liked Niko too. I missed the house buying strengths of vice city and certain aspects of san andreas, but it was good game.Could have been worse than it was.

#12 Posted by Next-Gen-Tec (4623 posts) -
Because it's popular, and it's koooool to hate on popular things.
#13 Posted by DaveyBoy123 (2216 posts) -
Fair enough. I do agree with some points made (no planes, no customizable vehicles) but i dont think that really drags down the game
#14 Posted by DaveyBoy123 (2216 posts) -
Because it's popular, and it's koooool to hate on popular things.Next-Gen-Tec
lol
#15 Posted by Miyuki-Chan (518 posts) -
I thought it was ok, I thought the city was pretty boring compared to the other GTA games and cover/lock-on made it too easy for me.
#16 Posted by Jaysonguy (38059 posts) -

It's because it's realistic

They were sick of being a game labeled "kiddie" and went about making a game that made sense. Something that had the story and the players all tied together

Some people are upset that San Andreas was the last "over the top" game and that's fine.

I prefer real storytelling over the San Andreas style where it was all activities and no story and no characters

Now there's Saint's Row for the people who don't want story and just want fluff and activities and GTA for people who actually want a cohesive story and actual plot lines that you have to play a part of

I don't see the problem actually

#17 Posted by Gen007 (10955 posts) -

Story was terrible, characters had bad fake accents, no customization of cars or clothing, lack of stuff to buy, cant fly planes, you cant buy houses, and being confined to a city after having an entire "state" to play in in San Andreas. Well this is why i didnt like it.

mmielnik

i will admit i miss some of that stuff customizing cars was cool but then this is gta you couldnt really use it unless you wanted to lose it. Buying houses was cool too but then again you really dont spend anytime in them they just give you different places to save GTA4 does this for you automatically if you think bout through the story. GTA4 is a good size i mean san andreas def bigger but its not the size how you use it. One thing i wish they had kept is the RPG elements but i didnt miss that too much. I think most of those features were removed for good reason they must have wanted to streamline the exp. I still loved the game though.

#18 Posted by Gen007 (10955 posts) -

It's because it's realistic

They were sick of being a game labeled "kiddie" and went about making a game that made sense. Something that had the story and the players all tied together

Some people are upset that San Andreas was the last "over the top" game and that's fine.

I prefer real storytelling over the San Andreas style where it was all activities and no story and no characters

Now there's Saint's Row for the people who don't want story and just want fluff and activities and GTA for people who actually want a cohesive story and actual plot lines that you have to play a part of

I don't see the problem actually

Jaysonguy

i agree with that people are mad that they cant do sill dumb stuff anymore but i really dont miss that stuff and GTA 4 actually a great story whearas san andreas has a sory for the first hours then after that just random crap and a lil more story at the very end.

#19 Posted by XxChicagoTedXx (407 posts) -

Well I think the reason is there are two type of sandbox games and gamers. The first is the one that tries to give you a serious story and is more realistic (GTA 4). The second is the over the top action where you do things that would never happen in real life (Saints Row). Neither is better than the other it is just that different people prefer different things. Oh and BTW, to all you people complaining about planes, how often do you see them flying around in New York? And about the size of San Andreas, look at the size of GTA IV and the size of SA where it wasn't just open desert and you could actually do things there.

#20 Posted by seankane (4076 posts) -

The story is so unimportant in the GTA games. None of them, not even San Andreas had a real 'engaging' story. If you think that is a good story, then you've probably never seen a good movie.

GTA is all about FUN. Being a video game, that is not a bad thing. GTAIV was far too focused on story and completely unimportant details. They forgot what made people like the game in the first place.

#21 Posted by explasiv (1420 posts) -

cuz it sucks....

#22 Posted by Toxic8 (1653 posts) -

I thought the funniest part of san andreas were riding the lawnmowers and bicycles. Classic to do drive bys on them,lol.

#23 Posted by gow117 (2963 posts) -
The story, even though it felt more close to reality this time, it didnt catch my interest at some points, i guess that Rockstar will learn from its mistakes and make a wonderful gta in the future. It was a big step in the series, and one that i enjoyed...but it does have its flaws
#24 Posted by seankane (4076 posts) -

Oh and BTW, to all you people complaining about planes, how often do you see them flying around in New York?

XxChicagoTedXx

Why the hell does GTA need to be 'realistic'? :?

I didn't realize GTA became a city simulator. I always thought it was a great video game, where you could create mayhem in tons of different ways. But nope, I guess it has to be realistic now. Maybe the police should start coming after you for speeding? That would be realistic. Not fun at all, but it seems that fun isn't important, just realism.

#25 Posted by DaveyBoy123 (2216 posts) -

The story is so unimportant in the GTA games. None of them, not even San Andreas had a real 'engaging' story. If you think that is a good story, then you've probably never seen a good movie.

GTA is all about FUN. Being a video game, that is not a bad thing. GTAIV was far too focused on story and completely unimportant details. They forgot what made people like the game in the first place.

seankane
"Good" is a relative term. you have no position to say that cuz i like the story, i dont know what good is. as for GTA being about fun, GTA4 was fun, for me
#26 Posted by DaveyBoy123 (2216 posts) -

[QUOTE="XxChicagoTedXx"]

Oh and BTW, to all you people complaining about planes, how often do you see them flying around in New York?

seankane

Why the hell does GTA need to be 'realistic'? :?

I didn't realize GTA became a city simulator. I always thought it was a great video game, where you could create mayhem in tons of different ways. But nope, I guess it has to be realistic now. Maybe the police should start coming after you for speeding? That would be realistic. Not fun at all, but it seems that fun isn't important, just realism.

i actually think that would be REALLY fun, i also would want to have to get gas or run out in the middle of a chase, it will add strategy to it, but thats just me, i love that kind of stuff
#27 Posted by seankane (4076 posts) -

[QUOTE="seankane"]

[QUOTE="XxChicagoTedXx"]

Oh and BTW, to all you people complaining about planes, how often do you see them flying around in New York?

DaveyBoy123

Why the hell does GTA need to be 'realistic'? :?

I didn't realize GTA became a city simulator. I always thought it was a great video game, where you could create mayhem in tons of different ways. But nope, I guess it has to be realistic now. Maybe the police should start coming after you for speeding? That would be realistic. Not fun at all, but it seems that fun isn't important, just realism.

i actually think that would be REALLY fun, i also would want to have to get gas or run out in the middle of a chase, it will add strategy to it, but thats just me, i love that kind of stuff

In a video game, it would be boring as hell. Its easy to say it would be fun on paper, but if you actually thought about it, it would make the game totally lame.

Realism does not equal fun. I mean, how would you like it if you got caught speeding 3X and you couldn't drive cars because of a suspended license? Or what if you crashed into another car and were put into jail for 4 months, where you could do nothing but sit in a cell the entire time?

#28 Posted by DaveyBoy123 (2216 posts) -

[QUOTE="DaveyBoy123"][QUOTE="seankane"]

Why the hell does GTA need to be 'realistic'? :?

I didn't realize GTA became a city simulator. I always thought it was a great video game, where you could create mayhem in tons of different ways. But nope, I guess it has to be realistic now. Maybe the police should start coming after you for speeding? That would be realistic. Not fun at all, but it seems that fun isn't important, just realism.

seankane

i actually think that would be REALLY fun, i also would want to have to get gas or run out in the middle of a chase, it will add strategy to it, but thats just me, i love that kind of stuff

In a video game, it would be boring as hell. Its easy to say it would be fun on paper, but if you actually thought about it, it would make the game totally lame.

Realism does not equal fun. I mean, how would you like it if you got caught speeding 3X and you couldn't drive cars because of a suspended license? Or what if you crashed into another car and were put into jail for 4 months, where you could do nothing but sit in a cell the entire time?

well as i said, its all a matter of opinion, and in my opinion, Realism does = fun. and just cuz in the game you might have a suspended licence, doesn't mean you couldnt drive, but you would get in more trouble next time.
#29 Posted by Jaysonguy (38059 posts) -

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

It's because it's realistic

They were sick of being a game labeled "kiddie" and went about making a game that made sense. Something that had the story and the players all tied together

Some people are upset that San Andreas was the last "over the top" game and that's fine.

I prefer real storytelling over the San Andreas style where it was all activities and no story and no characters

Now there's Saint's Row for the people who don't want story and just want fluff and activities and GTA for people who actually want a cohesive story and actual plot lines that you have to play a part of

I don't see the problem actually

Gen007

i agree with that people are mad that they cant do sill dumb stuff anymore but i really dont miss that stuff and GTA 4 actually a great story whearas san andreas has a sory for the first hours then after that just random crap and a lil more story at the very end.

Exactly

San Andreas was just a bunch of mini games tied together with a paper thin story. GTA SA wasn't a game where you played out a story, it was a game where you did a bunch of activities and then the credits ran

GTA wants to be taken seriously and wants to show that they're more then stupid stunts and actions. GTA4 brought the game back to it's third person roots about storytelling and making you part of that story.

The people who still like the fluff have Saints Row. They're happy being the mini game game and they do it well

There's no reason why people shouldn't play both for the different experiences

#30 Posted by DaveyBoy123 (2216 posts) -

[QUOTE="Gen007"]

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

It's because it's realistic

They were sick of being a game labeled "kiddie" and went about making a game that made sense. Something that had the story and the players all tied together

Some people are upset that San Andreas was the last "over the top" game and that's fine.

I prefer real storytelling over the San Andreas style where it was all activities and no story and no characters

Now there's Saint's Row for the people who don't want story and just want fluff and activities and GTA for people who actually want a cohesive story and actual plot lines that you have to play a part of

I don't see the problem actually

Jaysonguy

i agree with that people are mad that they cant do sill dumb stuff anymore but i really dont miss that stuff and GTA 4 actually a great story whearas san andreas has a sory for the first hours then after that just random crap and a lil more story at the very end.

Exactly

San Andreas was just a bunch of mini games tied together with a paper thin story. GTA SA wasn't a game where you played out a story, it was a game where you did a bunch of activities and then the credits ran

GTA wants to be taken seriously and wants to show that they're more then stupid stunts and actions. GTA4 brought the game back to it's third person roots about storytelling and making you part of that story.

The people who still like the fluff have Saints Row. They're happy being the mini game game and they do it well

There's no reason why people shouldn't play both for the different experiences

well said
#31 Posted by XxChicagoTedXx (407 posts) -

[QUOTE="seankane"]

[QUOTE="DaveyBoy123"] i actually think that would be REALLY fun, i also would want to have to get gas or run out in the middle of a chase, it will add strategy to it, but thats just me, i love that kind of stuffDaveyBoy123

In a video game, it would be boring as hell. Its easy to say it would be fun on paper, but if you actually thought about it, it would make the game totally lame.

Realism does not equal fun. I mean, how would you like it if you got caught speeding 3X and you couldn't drive cars because of a suspended license? Or what if you crashed into another car and were put into jail for 4 months, where you could do nothing but sit in a cell the entire time?

well as i said, its all a matter of opinion, and in my opinion, Realism does = fun. and just cuz in the game you might have a suspended licence, doesn't mean you couldnt drive, but you would get in more trouble next time.

I love realism in my games so I agree totally. And if realism in video gamesisn't fun, then why are there so many great simulators out there? You are probably just some CoD fanboy that couldn't survive in a strategic/team based game like Left 4 Dead or Operation Flashpoint.

#32 Posted by onuruca (2877 posts) -
i dont think ppl hates it but ppl that played the whole gta series dont like it .D
#33 Posted by Hakud0ushi (7613 posts) -

Its a good game, just overrated.

#34 Posted by DigitalExile (16049 posts) -

It's not San Andreas 2.

Anyways, I liked the game, but it was a serious GTA with less features and content from other GTAs, almost feels like a remake of GTA III.

mitu123

San Andreas was more... but it wasn't good. You have these massive empty spaces of desert and and country side with nothing in them. GTAIV has improved graphics, gun play, player movement, driving mechanics, physics etc.

Writing I feel was a lot better (though still not good), so the story was interesting enough. Look at San Andreas. The whole story was just CJ saying the n word and acting tough. The only thing GTAIV lacked was that old GTA humour, but quite frankly I wasn't sad to see it go in favour of a more serious and realistic GTA game.

And let's not forget the pointless RPG settings... even if I don't want to pay attention to them I have to because messages are always popping on the screen telling me I'm too fat, or too skinny, not enough muscle, my stamina is going down, I look ugly, some girlfriend is calling me. STFU AND LEAVE ME ALONE. Why do I need any of that when I have an AK and can just shoot people to death? San Andreas wasn't even a hard game. If you're in a situation where you constantly need to be running or fighting with your fists you're playing it wrong.

GTAIV... I always have a weapon, and (since I played the PC version with an insane amount of cars) I don't need to worry about running around on foot unless I choose to (and with how beautiful and detailed the city is I freqently do).

You can't argue GTAIV is less from a technical standpoint, only from personal taste, which counts for jack ****.

#35 Posted by seankane (4076 posts) -

well as i said, its all a matter of opinion, and in my opinion, Realism does = fun. and just cuz in the game you might have a suspended licence, doesn't mean you couldnt drive, but you would get in more trouble next time.DaveyBoy123

You're full of horse-poop if you think that complete realism is fun. Like I said, what if they arrested you and you couldn't do anything but sit in a cell for a couple actual months?

Most people who play the game aren't looking for realism. They just want to have some mindless fun. There's a very good reason people like San Andreas more than GTAIV. It focused less on unimportant details and more on the ability to rampage around.

Its not opinion. If you want real-life, you can go outside and experience it first-hand.

#36 Posted by seankane (4076 posts) -

San Andreas was more... but it wasn't good. You have these massive empty spaces of desert and and country side with nothing in them. GTAIV has improved graphics, gun play, player movement, driving mechanics, physics etc.

DigitalExile

GTAIV had some of the worst driving mechanics I've ever seen in a GTA game.

And those 'empty' spaces were a lot of fun to play around in. At least it was different than city and then more city, and more city, and more city.

As for graphics, they were technically better(as they should over a PS2 game), but they still looked all blurry without the option to turn that 'blur effect' off like you could in San Andreas. That was really irritating. Game didn't look nearly as good as it could have.

And you can have better physics, but if its still no fun to just run around rampaging, then it doesn't make a lick of difference.

#37 Posted by hotplayer220 (1818 posts) -

It's over rated. Plain and simple.

#38 Posted by Smokescreened84 (2516 posts) -

What I didn't like about GTA4, and which had me switching the game off last year and not bothering to play it again, was that after the first few missions and the city was fully unlocked was that there was very little to do outside of the missions.
It felt like every ten seconds the mobile phone would ring, and it would usually be Roman on the other end more often than the others, there was nothing to distract from the pattern of going from one mission to another, and the missions themselves weren't all that good. Far too much 'Kill this person' 'Go here, go there, go here again'. The only good mission was the bank robbery and that was an actual challenge.

The controls were fine, though Nico was clunky when going down or up stairs. The weapon control was fine, even if it did make the fights far too easy. But there was so little to do, you could explore the city and be lucky to find some pidgeons to shoot, but there was nothing else to find.
And the 'mini games', they were pathetic. They weren't a diversion, they were so mind numbing that you could watch a reality tv show and probably get more stimulation.

The game looked great - well if lots of browns and greys with uses of other colours, in small doses, is what you consider as great, had a great control system, but once you looked past that, all you had was a very shallow, very dull game that didn't live up to all it's hype. It felt more like a 'My First Grand Theft Auto' than a sequel. If they do another one, I really hope they'll note how boring GTA4 was and add in a lot of little things to do that are a lot of fun, and which really help to keep the player going.

Realism is for real life, it just doesn't really translate well to games because video games are supposed to be about having fun, not being driven mad by a mobile phone.

R/T

#39 Posted by gamer082009 (6679 posts) -

Story was terrible, characters had bad fake accents, no customization of cars or clothing, lack of stuff to buy, cant fly planes, you cant buy houses, and being confined to a city after having an entire "state" to play in in San Andreas. Well this is why i didnt like it.

mmielnik
I can see where you're going but seriously it's a helluva good game regardless. I will agree though that the story could've been much better, heck the main character could've been a little more interesting like the past GTA main characters. And I'm tired of getting paid all this money but having nothing to spend it on other than ammo and food from Cluckinbale.
#40 Posted by seankane (4076 posts) -

What I didn't like about GTA4, and which had me switching the game off last year and not bothering to play it again, was that after the first few missions and the city was fully unlocked was that there was very little to do outside of the missions.
It felt like every ten seconds the mobile phone would ring, and it would usually be Roman on the other end more often than the others, there was nothing to distract from the pattern of going from one mission to another, and the missions themselves weren't all that good. Far too much 'Kill this person' 'Go here, go there, go here again'. The only good mission was the bank robbery and that was an actual challenge.

The controls were fine, though Nico was clunky when going down or up stairs. The weapon control was fine, even if it did make the fights far too easy. But there was so little to do, you could explore the city and be lucky to find some pidgeons to shoot, but there was nothing else to find.
And the 'mini games', they were pathetic. They weren't a diversion, they were so mind numbing that you could watch a reality tv show and probably get more stimulation.

The game looked great - well if lots of browns and greys with uses of other colours, in small doses, is what you consider as great, had a great control system, but once you looked past that, all you had was a very shallow, very dull game that didn't live up to all it's hype. It felt more like a 'My First Grand Theft Auto' than a sequel. If they do another one, I really hope they'll note how boring GTA4 was and add in a lot of little things to do that are a lot of fun, and which really help to keep the player going.

Realism is for real life, it just doesn't really translate well to games because video games are supposed to be about having fun, not being driven mad by a mobile phone.

R/T

Smokescreened84

*thumbs up*

The game was just plain disappointing. Lacked the appeal of the old GTA games.

#41 Posted by bulletsword (13995 posts) -
I'm going to go with my gut on this one. It was given 10/10 almost everywhere, which is pretty absurd since pretty much no other game this generation got a 10. even then, people had the impression that this meant that GTA IV was "perfect", while it's very clear to GTA fans, to gamers, and to the little kiddies that got their hands on it that GTA IV was definitely not "perfect". Not to mention that the people in SW started *****ing about it to compensate for their small genitalia. I think if it was given a 9-9.5, the hate would be much, much lower. I enjoyed the game, but honestly, even a 9.5 score would be pushing it.
#43 Posted by Smokescreened84 (2516 posts) -

Hmm, slight mismatch of logic there, not every gamer is American. I'm Scottish and I don't relate to pretty much every game character since many of them are American characters, but it doesn't stop me from playing the game.

Nico was interesting, if a tad generic. Saint's Row 2 allows for a female choice, surely the GTA games could progress to allow a female character as the main character instead of 'Generio male', but then if that happened there might be many male gamers who are worried their pride and joy will fall off. And yes,I don't relate too well with male characters either.

GTA4 got a lot of hype, it's name alone sold the game, but while there are those who loved it and tended to draw a blind eye to it's short comings, there are those who saw the short comings and the lost potential to the game.
GTA4 is one of those games that goes to show that it doesn't matter if the game is a big name, that it looks great and has truly remarkable controls, if the game itself is boring then the game isn't perfect, it's flawed and in a big way.

Graphics don't make a game, they are an important part, but if they are all the game has to offer and there's nothing else to the game, then all you have is a very pretty looking cup coaster to show off.
The series has developed, but this first step was a wonky one. Maybe later steps will be a lot more stable, more steady. Bu then again maybe GTA4 might be the beginning of the series going downhill and turning into pretty looking snorefests.

I love the GTA series, but I'm not blindly loyal to it, I keep my mind open to the short comings of the series, as I do with any game, even my favourite games. GTA4 was, in my own opinion, a backstep in terms of the series fun and humour, but a forward step in terms of visuals and controls.
Maybe later ones will be a lot better, maybe they won't, it's just a case of wait and see.

But from a GTA fan since the very first one back in the 90s, GTA4 just didn't cut the mustard once you looked past the great graphics and controls.

R/T

#44 Posted by DeadSarow (493 posts) -

Because they're jealous cause they can't be as cool as Niko Bellic

#45 Posted by XxChicagoTedXx (407 posts) -

Why is everyone complaining about realism? I know it is not everyones thing but saying that it adds NO FUN to video games and should be left to real life is absurd. Like I said before, if that were all true, we would have absolutely NO simulators or tactical shooters at all. I think that if they added more reasons for cops to chase you would be great. And there would not be a time where you just sit there for a couple years in jail, but it would be cool like if you got caught killing people you would have to restart from the save game. If you play anything on the PC you should know that there are a ton of realism mods for every game out there so obviously some people think it is fun.

#46 Posted by Microdevine (1126 posts) -

beacause its the second highest rated game of ALL-TIME.thats why.and its "Cool" 8) to hate on it.its an amazing game.that grew up.and the people that dont like it, are 1. people that didnt grow up with the franchise(they like saints row now), 2. they like to hate on good, successful games, or 3. they just dont like the gta franchise in general.

#47 Posted by mimic-Denmark (4380 posts) -

Because it's popular, and it's koooool to hate on popular things.Next-Gen-Tec

Yeah, that is a very narrow minded and not very intelligent way of looking at it.

GTA 4 was just not a step ahead in gameplay. Thats why I went over to the saints row series, because they know how to have fun! And thats what I want from sandbox games.

#48 Posted by DaveyBoy123 (2216 posts) -

[QUOTE="DaveyBoy123"]well as i said, its all a matter of opinion, and in my opinion, Realism does = fun. and just cuz in the game you might have a suspended licence, doesn't mean you couldnt drive, but you would get in more trouble next time.seankane

You're full of horse-poop if you think that complete realism is fun. Like I said, what if they arrested you and you couldn't do anything but sit in a cell for a couple actual months?

Most people who play the game aren't looking for realism. They just want to have some mindless fun. There's a very good reason people like San Andreas more than GTAIV. It focused less on unimportant details and more on the ability to rampage around.

Its not opinion. If you want real-life, you can go outside and experience it first-hand.

i think being thrown in prison and being forced to defend myself against the inmates would be AMAZING, it would add a consequence to your actions.
#49 Posted by howlrunner13 (4399 posts) -

The game while fun is MASSIVELY overrated. I can't believe all the reviewers that jumped on the bandwagon and gave it a 10. All the glitches and bugs, not to mention that once you complete the story the game gets old. Fast. I'd give it a 9.0, maybe a 9.5 on a good day.

#50 Posted by Justinge3 (2506 posts) -
SnowStorm Mission. Impossible /thread (you know im kidding)