I'm curious, can you tell us what percent complete it says in the stats? I always finish the stories but have never reached 100% complete due to all the side activities. I'm not very far into GTA4 but there seems to be less things to discover around the town this time.
GTA4
- Thread starter Scott_Arm
- Start date
I'm curious, can you tell us what percent complete it says in the stats? I always finish the stories but have never reached 100% complete due to all the side activities. I'm not very far into GTA4 but there seems to be less things to discover around the town this time.
I totally agree. I can easily live with the technical flaws of GTA4, but I think Rockstar should of done things a little different in the second half(I still haven't finished).
I felt alot of empathy for Niko in the first half of the story. Niko being new to America trying to start a new life forced into criminal act due to gambling issues of his cousin Roman. Niko gets flushed deeper into the underworld due to his rather aggressive tactic. The story becomes pretty compelling.
Here is the point where I go "WTH!!!!".
I tend to not make great use of Roman's car service feature. I used only a few times on the first island. I went 10 hours before I used it on the second island. But my jaw dropped when I used it and saw an Escalade/Navigator pull up to me for pick up. Im like why I am running around doing all these criminal deeds and feeding Roman's gambling addicition when this guy has a fleet of luxury SUVs.
I know there is a motivation for finding Darko, but the common theme of the missions become "as long as I get paid" type of attitude from Niko. I fail to see the need for such motivation especially after 4 leaf clover.
I know there is a motivation for finding Darko, but the common theme of the missions become "as long as I get paid" type of attitude from Niko. I fail to see the need for such motivation especially after 4 leaf clover.
I think the second half of GTA4 should of maintain the direction of the first half and made the main premise of GTA4 of trying to go legitimate and break away from a life of crime.
I also think some of the features added to Vice City Stories but more fleshed out should have been added to GTA4. There not much motivation in acquiring cash other than buying guns. GTA4 needed more major money sinks. I would of love a feature where you bought crappy businesses with minimal returns that could be upgraded based on your continued investment.
Especially with Roman's taxi service it was a rather jarring that he moved up from crappy LTDs right to luxury SUVs. Plus, you never get to see Roman's new taxi depot. I would have rather seen a more gradual transformation of that business based on the amount of money I gave him over time.
I read something that said somewhere around 65% for the story.
WabeWalker
Newcomer
At a forum called TeamXbox I described this game as looking like a Claude Monet painting in that there's no clarity to the characters or the buildings in the distance. Initially I said that the game was just a blurry mess.
But then I revised that statement - or tried to - and settled on saying that the gameworld looks like a Monet painting come to life.
Does anybody here agree with that statement?
I merely ask because I was practically run out of the TeamXbox forum for suggesting this. People simply said that the game was great looking and that I was a noob and an idiot, and that I didn't know what I was talking about.
But then I revised that statement - or tried to - and settled on saying that the gameworld looks like a Monet painting come to life.
Does anybody here agree with that statement?
I merely ask because I was practically run out of the TeamXbox forum for suggesting this. People simply said that the game was great looking and that I was a noob and an idiot, and that I didn't know what I was talking about.
A metaphors, like art, is personal, and not usually technical, so I can't promise subjective consensus here. If we do reach it, though, it'll be with 100% less "noob" and "idiot." (Well, 100% less superfluous "nub!"s. 
) That said, were you referring to the PS3's (daytime) blur/soft-focus effect or 360's dithering/pointillism?
novce, we don't delete posts because they're "too" truthful, as that sort of defeats the purpose of a technical forum, but I didn't realize anyone was arguing the PS3's blur was anything other than intent, be it artistic or technical. BTW, your second pic, is that a 1:1 or scaled crop?
) That said, were you referring to the PS3's (daytime) blur/soft-focus effect or 360's dithering/pointillism?novce, we don't delete posts because they're "too" truthful, as that sort of defeats the purpose of a technical forum, but I didn't realize anyone was arguing the PS3's blur was anything other than intent, be it artistic or technical. BTW, your second pic, is that a 1:1 or scaled crop?
scarslasher
Newcomer
I completely agree with you, but anyone familiar with the series knows that the entire series was NOT built on graphics, that's for sure. :smile: It's the freedom that makes it so addictive. People will blindly support it for the wrong reasons, though. It's definitely a game worth throwing your support behind, but not for graphics.
I really enjoy the online portion of the game. Played quite a bit last night. That said, I've never had to use the mute so frequently in all of my experiences online. What is it about this game that attracts the bottom feeders of the gene pool? If I was the parent of any of these people, I'd feel humiliated. I've never heard so many white kids hurl racist insults at each other before. And I've played A LOT of online games. It's even worse then when I'd accidentally log into some white power counter-strike server back in the day, where people would be spraying swastikas on the walls.
You should have tried Saints Row online, that was awful. All the kids thought they where black rappers or something.
With the PS3 i have found that there is much less of this, mostly because you have to buy a headset.
After completing the story I still think my original 9+ rating holds. Although I am nowhere near as enamored with it as I was in the first 10-12 hours (in which I thought the game could be a 10 for me but voted conservatively). So many aspects actually became incredibly annoying. I really hope that if they make another one during this console generation that we can have mid-mission checkpoints, and more responsive controls. I was actually taken by surprise when the game ended. I don't know why, it was pretty obvious that things were reaching the climax. I guess I just wanted more. Also, I kind of wanted some huge 30 minute+ ending sequence, lol. Guess the point is that you actually play that awesome ending sequence.
WabeWalker
Newcomer
A metaphors, like art, is personal, and not usually technical, so I can't promise subjective consensus here. If we do reach it, though, it'll be with 100% less "noob" and "idiot." (Well, 100% less superfluous "nub!"s.
novce, we don't delete posts because they're "too" truthful, as that sort of defeats the purpose of a technical forum, but I didn't realize anyone was arguing the PS3's blur was anything other than intent, be it artistic or technical. BTW, your second pic, is that a 1:1 or scaled crop?
I was referring to the 360's dithering effect - I've never seen this effect used in any game, period.
If it has been used before then it's never been this exaggerated.
Also, I'm not certain I would say that this observation is a metaphor - lol. I mean, if you see a Claude Monet painting, it's not metaphorical to say... hmm, that looks like a Claude Monet painting.
It either is a Monet or it isn't.
If your 360 is connected to a really great PC monitor via HDMI then while playing GTA IV all you have to do is look at the characters on the far side of the street. You can't see their faces. There's no definition to their bodies. Exactly like a painting by Claude Monet. Yeah, I get it that you guys want to impress each other with technical talk, but ho-lee, if you can't see that this game is imitating the art style of Monet...
Also, I think it's worth mentioning that the lead art-director for this game is first and foremost an artist, not a technical person. There's more to a game's art style than just technical stuff.
Last edited by a moderator:
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
So you think an effect that was created due to the limitations of the hardware was intended to be artistic interpretation of reality?
I'm familiar with Monet. I was just wondering if you meant Seurat, but it's probably too much of a stretch to take dithering to be pointillism.
My main point was that interpreting artistic intent isn't really the purview of the Technical forum. And, look at that, we've been bumped to the general gaming forum.
My main point was that interpreting artistic intent isn't really the purview of the Technical forum. And, look at that, we've been bumped to the general gaming forum.
standing ovation
Regular
The developer might agree with you.
First things first. Xbox 360 runs at full 720p (1280x720), whereas the PlayStation 3 code takes a 20 per cent hit, being natively rendered at 1152x640 before being software-upscaled ...
GTA IV is a kind of weird combination of the two. Both versions feature heavily post-processed visuals, in particular when it comes to depth-of-field effects. Objects in the distance on both versions are blurred in an effort to match the natural focus of the human eye. Where post-processed blur meets the upscaling effect of PlayStation 3, the result usually looks very good indeed - a little softer, of course, but rarely distracting. A slight change of hue (particularly noticeable on indoor cut-scenes) also makes the PS3 version look slightly warmer.
Technically speaking, Xbox 360 really should be winning this contest hands-down, but bizarrely, it doesn't. There's support for proper hardware-assisted anti-aliasing, eliminating a great deal of the jagginess of the PlayStation 3 version, plus it's running at full-fat 720p. However, Rockstar has introduced a 360-specific post-processing effect that dithers just about every texture on-screen. It's an effect not present at all on the PS3 version and serves to introduce an oil-painting-like effect to the overall look of the game, particularly on background objects. Unfortunately, it also seems to actively distort the edges of detail in the textures and occasionally looks really ugly.
Source: Eurogamer
GTA IV is a kind of weird combination of the two. Both versions feature heavily post-processed visuals, in particular when it comes to depth-of-field effects. Objects in the distance on both versions are blurred in an effort to match the natural focus of the human eye. Where post-processed blur meets the upscaling effect of PlayStation 3, the result usually looks very good indeed - a little softer, of course, but rarely distracting. A slight change of hue (particularly noticeable on indoor cut-scenes) also makes the PS3 version look slightly warmer.
Technically speaking, Xbox 360 really should be winning this contest hands-down, but bizarrely, it doesn't. There's support for proper hardware-assisted anti-aliasing, eliminating a great deal of the jagginess of the PlayStation 3 version, plus it's running at full-fat 720p. However, Rockstar has introduced a 360-specific post-processing effect that dithers just about every texture on-screen. It's an effect not present at all on the PS3 version and serves to introduce an oil-painting-like effect to the overall look of the game, particularly on background objects. Unfortunately, it also seems to actively distort the edges of detail in the textures and occasionally looks really ugly.
Source: Eurogamer
Eurogamer are not the developers, it's just an opinion. It almost looks artistic, but the destructive nature of it makes textures garbled; signs, people's faces, shadows, etc. There is a subtle oil-painting effect in the PS3 version, you can notice it with the trees. I guess there is a whole thread for this topic and the conclusion is it's still unknown.
I must say that all the HD trailers I watched did not have the dithering effect, so either they added it later or they were made with some secret PC version.
I must say that all the HD trailers I watched did not have the dithering effect, so either they added it later or they were made with some secret PC version.
standing ovation
Regular
The article tells us why the developer chose to do the things they have done. And this insight is usually gleaned from the source.
Whether the game looks like a Monet or not is subjective -- like our reviews. That the Xbox version was intended to look like an oil painting, however, is not.
Whether the game looks like a Monet or not is subjective -- like our reviews. That the Xbox version was intended to look like an oil painting, however, is not.
It's pretty good and well made, but I found the inverse kinematics of the games to be pretty annoying as it made turning the character feel sluggish, something that Uncharted didn't suffer from, it stayed fluid, but not didn't feel constrained. The graphics are good especially for the amount of rendering that needs to be done, with some framerate dips at times. At first I hated the more realistic car physics but I got used to them (though I have to say I don't like arcade racers, I do prefer Gran Turismo by far).
It's a pretty good game, but I'd decline a 10/10, more around 8.5/10.
It's a pretty good game, but I'd decline a 10/10, more around 8.5/10.
dubyateeeff
Newcomer
I am now at plus 50% and I can easily give it 10/10, or 5/5. There are of course some problems with the game but not enough to topple the score.
Way more cinematic than Heavenly Sword and I'd say it is up there with uncharted as one of the two best ps3 games.
Way more cinematic than Heavenly Sword and I'd say it is up there with uncharted as one of the two best ps3 games.
I'm at like 53%, not sure I have much left.
Overall it's the most I've played a GTA game, but I'm losing steam. The mission variety is lacking, too much time is spent getting to and from the action (especially if you die/fail) and I take a cab 99% of the time and skip the driving. I feel the story is a bit strung together. Nikko does work for people for money but at what point is killing yet another random person for $5k worth it? I love the city, the lighting, gun fights (auto-aim off), etc. I don't like the radius based police system, it's too forced. It encourages me to drive fast to anywhere, I'd prefer a get out of sight and hide method. The graphics are a mixed bag (on both systems), sometimes they are great, other times they look below average.
Overall I'd say it's a 9.0/10, plenty of room to improve for GTA5. I don't feel inclined to try any DLC unless it's something beyond what I have played thus far, I'm already burned out.
Overall it's the most I've played a GTA game, but I'm losing steam. The mission variety is lacking, too much time is spent getting to and from the action (especially if you die/fail) and I take a cab 99% of the time and skip the driving. I feel the story is a bit strung together. Nikko does work for people for money but at what point is killing yet another random person for $5k worth it? I love the city, the lighting, gun fights (auto-aim off), etc. I don't like the radius based police system, it's too forced. It encourages me to drive fast to anywhere, I'd prefer a get out of sight and hide method. The graphics are a mixed bag (on both systems), sometimes they are great, other times they look below average.
Overall I'd say it's a 9.0/10, plenty of room to improve for GTA5. I don't feel inclined to try any DLC unless it's something beyond what I have played thus far, I'm already burned out.
Similar threads
