GTA4
- Thread starter Scott_Arm
- Start date
Doesn't it concern you that the new story may suffer from the same problems? If Rockstar hasn't learned to tell a story in GTA4, not sure they'll be better now.
I wonder how it will work out playing as a new character? I mean as soon as the game loads up it's nico standing in the last place you saved, so will there be a menu of some sort now? Can it be played at anytime during the game (you won't have to have completed the game?). So many questions come to mind when thinking about how this will work.
Maybe it'll show up and launch as a separate game, but use the same disc.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
No, it doesn't. The Story in GTAIV was actually great to begin with. It's one of the reasons it got such great reviews and sold so many copies. The problem was it fell apart about 3/4rds of the way through and the game play became redundant 1/2 way through.
A DLC addition would be expected to only be about 1/2 the size of the 'full' game, and I think that is entirely manageable for Rockstar.
Hm, a story that falls apart 3/4 of the way through sounds great. Who cares about climaxes or closure? Let's just have all our plots meander into Soprano knock-offs!
And please don't use reviews as 'proof' that the plot is great; reviews were given by reviewers who had essentially been sequestered and made to play through the game in as little time as possible. And we're really not supposed to discuss reviews in the first place.
Unless they pick the wrong half to draw inspiration from! I don't think Rockstar has it in them to write a good plot because I haven't seen them do it yet. Plot was the weakest link in the first three 3d GTAs and it wasn't that much better in Bully. The only hope I have is that the Bully team works on this, since at least they know how to do varied missions -- and there they managed to avoid the disconnect between GTA gameplay and GTA storyline, even if the main plot arc there developed and wrapped up in about 5 minutes (and I loved Bully).
GTA4's plot tries to humanize Niko, but that's a problem because GTA games in general don't lend themselves well to humanization. The gameplay consists of behaving like a maniac, while the plot tries to tell you not to be a maniac (true mostly for SA and 4. Tommy was something of a maniac to begin with, and Claude had no personality). This was true in SA too; but there, the world at least was so crazy and over-the-top you might not mind that CJ was a whiny pushover (in direct contrast to his owning most of the real-estate across the state). You were too busy stealing rocket packs from Area 69, or running over rednecks with a thresher. GTA4 went the other direction, turning the city far more gritty... and all of a sudden the massive flaws in the plot are a lot more noticeable -- you could look the other way when the game wasn't taking itself seriously.
... and again I've gone on an anti-GTA4 tirade. I don't even hate the game, I just think it was a huge disappointment, and it doesn't help anyone to pretend that this game delivered what was promised -- which, among other things, includes a spectacular story.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
WTF are you going off about? The story WAS fine, they should have ended it 3/4rds of the way through. I don't see how that's very difficult to understand.
First, I can discuss reviews all I want, again, I don't know what you're going off about. Second, I stated my opinion and mentioned reviews only to explain why they gave it such high marks for a storyline that fell short 3/4ths of the way through. Because it was GREAT for those 3/4ths, while severely lacking for the final (and most memorable) 1/4th. Again, I don't know what you're going off about.
Clearly.
For somebody who has so much pent up rage against Rockstar, you sure do encourage them by playing all their games.
I'd suggest you look elsewhere for a discussion about the emotional impact of your expectations VS reality when it comes to video games. I have no desire to discuss what you perceived to be promised or what your individual expectations for a game were and how that compares to reality.
Reality, I'll discuss. Perceptions and expectations are things that are better discussed with trained professionals.
And I'm saying that if 1/4 of the story wasn't so good, you can't really say that the story was 'good'. A good story's good the whole way through. Or do you think that a game story need only be piece-meal 'good' to be good as a whole? Would you extend that sort of courtesy to a book, or a movie?
No, you mentioned reviews as an appeal to authority. 'I thought the story was great and so did reviewers!' I say it wasn't; it was a ho-hum, piddling mobs to riches story mixed with an action movie mixed with an attempt to tell a poignant 'immigrant's story'. I don't even agree with the 1/4 thing, I just think it's ridiculous to say the story is great when you admit a good part of it was bad. I think the story fell apart the moment it became just another GTA, which was about the time you hit Algonquin.
Clearly.
Well, you're the one arguing 'well, they know how to do half a good story, so they should be able to handle a story half the size!' which is just asinine. If you don't know how to reach a conclusion you don't know how to reach a conclusion. GTA4 wasn't a game that started strong, floundered in the middle and finished strong, in which case you could say that removing much of the inner fluff could help the story. It's a game that started strong, floundered in the middle then finished with a whimper.
This is a curious ad hominem, but I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. I have no pent up rage against Rockstar. I have an issue with moron reviewers and blind fanboys. I play games I like; I like sandbox games a whole lot, and Rockstar is (was?) good at making those. But plot has never been their strong point, so it's ridiculous to try and sell plot in a game like that. Especially from a company that has no history of delivering solid plots. Now, this isn't just Rockstar's fault; you can probably count on one hand the number of studios that know how to construct a plot (and I'm not even talking about making every game Torment, I mean build it with a proper beginning, middle and end, textbook-stuff, even if it's comic-book-stupid the whole way).
As for playing all their games, ask me if I'm early-adopting the next Rockstar North sandbox game. I might still give Rockstar Vancouver my money early on, they earned a ton of good-will from me with Bully.
If you have no desire to discuss, then don't reply. And it's not just perception. Just read up the hype, read the interviews with the Housers. See what was promised from the game. See what was delivered. More importantly, notice the huge pass the press gave the game when they came short on their promises. And even more importantly, start to pay attention to how Rockstar sells this DLC. See what gravitas they try to attach to the story of a biker, then compare it to the DLC when you inevitably buy it.
The main story took me about 25 hours on the first one. This is using a lot of fast travel. The problem with the main story was how often it branched off. By the end, I just wanted to be done with it. Some of the side characters should have been left to their own side quests instead of being added to the main line play through. The main story should have been streamlined. Had the main story been condensed into 15 hours or so, it'd be easier to keep up with and just overall more exciting.
I hate games (and even gamers to an extent) that love dragged out games for the sake of being able to say "see how long it takes!" That means nothing to me. Give me 12-15hours of good intensity in such a game and I'm happy. Expand the rest of the time to side quests. Then I can spend more time on the side quests if/when I feel like it. I have the same problem with JRPG's that pride themselves on taking forever to finish.
I hate games (and even gamers to an extent) that love dragged out games for the sake of being able to say "see how long it takes!" That means nothing to me. Give me 12-15hours of good intensity in such a game and I'm happy. Expand the rest of the time to side quests. Then I can spend more time on the side quests if/when I feel like it. I have the same problem with JRPG's that pride themselves on taking forever to finish.
I disagree with you. You can have a good story told from beginning to end, and then a prologned, dull epilogue tacked onto the end. Even if the story arc climxes in the third quarter, that story could be good. Take your favourite film or book, imagine that sotry exactly as is but with an extra third added after the climax of general rubbish. The rubbish at the end doesn't take away from the story. It may be bad writing to add that rubbish, but it doesn't stop the plot being one you enjoy!
IS IT OUT FOR PC YET?!?!?!
IS IT OUT FOR PC YET?!?!?!
It comes out early December, I think. Hopefully us PC players will also get the DLC that's supposed to be coming out soon.
Well, I think we may be speaking of two different things. I'm talking about an obvious problem concluding a story. If you can't put in the basics of a plot correctly, then I don't think the length of a story matters, you won't be able to do it, period. If we're talking about, say, an epilogue, or something unimportant to the direction of the plot, then yeah, just messing that up doesn't ruin the story (well, for the most part. MGS4's plot was a fun cheese-fest, but the 'true ending' left a sour taste in my mouth).
For GTA it's the former, rather than the latter. I can go into a lot more detail why, but it'd be spoiler-laden and probably just look like vitriol by the end.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
Well, you seem to be spitting into the wind here, because that's now three people that understand that the underlying story was a good one that was stretched beyond where it should in order to make the game last longer.
Had the story ended in the third stanza rather than the fourth, it would have been very well told and great.
THEREFORE, as a relation to what we're talking about, there is no reason to expect that RS can't deliver a shorter, more compact story that would be great as they are attempting to do with the DLC.
This is a very simple premise and your hatred based upon unrealistic personal expectations is an issue for you, and you alone.
Had GTAIV ended earlier than it did, it would have been a GREAT story. As it was, it was a great story up until the point they clearly tried to drag it out in order to extend the game.
Because this is DLC, and not an entirely new game, the need to extend the story won't be there, so we could reasonable expect the DLC to be fulfilling.
Listen. If you hate something so much that it consumes you to this extreme extent, maybe you should do something else with your time. Seriously. If you can't enjoy games for WHAT THEY ARE, and instead take more pleasure in pointing out what THEY AREN'T, maybe you've got other holes to fill that you should focus on.
I have a minor in English Lit, I know how stories are written and composed, I understand that GTAIV was stretched longer than the story was able and so does Shifty & R1. Why you can't grasp that is really an individual issue at this point.
If you really think you have a firm academic understanding of how stories are built and told and want to show us how GTAIV failed, then don't use 'spoilers' as an excuse. There's a spoiler tag. Use it and show us.
Had the story ended in the third stanza rather than the fourth, it would have been very well told and great.
THEREFORE, as a relation to what we're talking about, there is no reason to expect that RS can't deliver a shorter, more compact story that would be great as they are attempting to do with the DLC.
This is a very simple premise and your hatred based upon unrealistic personal expectations is an issue for you, and you alone.
Had GTAIV ended earlier than it did, it would have been a GREAT story. As it was, it was a great story up until the point they clearly tried to drag it out in order to extend the game.
Because this is DLC, and not an entirely new game, the need to extend the story won't be there, so we could reasonable expect the DLC to be fulfilling.
Listen. If you hate something so much that it consumes you to this extreme extent, maybe you should do something else with your time. Seriously. If you can't enjoy games for WHAT THEY ARE, and instead take more pleasure in pointing out what THEY AREN'T, maybe you've got other holes to fill that you should focus on.
I have a minor in English Lit, I know how stories are written and composed, I understand that GTAIV was stretched longer than the story was able and so does Shifty & R1. Why you can't grasp that is really an individual issue at this point.
If you really think you have a firm academic understanding of how stories are built and told and want to show us how GTAIV failed, then don't use 'spoilers' as an excuse. There's a spoiler tag. Use it and show us.
I'm clipping out the rest of your inane rambling about my personal life, seeing as how you know nothing about me. I'll question this. Let's say that you're right, and it would have been a great story if it was shorter (you're wrong, but I'll humor you). The game you played, where did it end? At the special point where the story was good, or to where they actually carried it? Is that how we're judging games? By how they'd be after an imaginary edit?
As for your complaint about taking games for what they 'are', and not what they 'aren't', then you mean we can't criticize games? Complain about ideas being half-baked, about concepts not reaching their full potential? It's a ridiculous stance to take. I certainly can complain about what a game isn't, especially in light of what was promised. I imagine that comparing one game to another is also out.
Again, this would stick if we weren't talking about the last part of the game. Who the hell extends a game via the conclusion? Is it a coincidence that no Rockstar open world game has had a good ending?
Who said hate? Please don't try to undermine my complaints with baseless accusations. All I hear is posturing but you haven't really refuted a single thing I've said. You've tried launching stupid statements like 'you play lots of Rockstar games for someone who hates them!' to discredit my arguments somehow and otherwise have failed to say anything more than 'I don't think so!'.
The game developers promised an intricate, well-developed story. They did not deliver. They delivered the same plot they delivered in every single GTA, with a handful of exceptions. Do I have to spell out in details how the plot sucked? GTA did a bunch of things well, it did a bunch of things poorly. Plot was (for the most part) in the latter category.
I don't think you do. We're talking about making a basic plot diagram; beginning, middle, end. GTA4 had a strong beginning, one or two strong points in the middle then an extremely abrupt and forced climax and conclusion. You're saying that a story can be good without a good conclusion and I'm pretty sure you're wrong.
You're the only one arguing with me. Shifty was arguing with the notion that a game has to be good through and through to be altogether 'good'. Which, as he points out, if you're talking of the epilogue, may not be true. I even agreed, but stated that this isn't the case. GTA4 has no epilogue, unless you count the 'contacts' remaining once you complete the game.
Fair enough. I would like to ask you to return the favor and explain why it's a good game. There's nothing academic about this, but I will attempt to deconstruct the plot. I'll give credit where credit is due, and will mention parts that were done well.
Essentially the whole plot is spoiled in the cut, so look out.
Let's start at the fundamental problem with the GTA games. There's a serious disconnect in the game between the systems/game and the plot. For all the advances made, Rockstar was unable to correct a problem that's been there since the beginning. Claude was a voiceless puppet, Tommy was a sociopath, but for both CJ and Niko, they make no effort to fit their systems around their more 'human' characters, and just shoehorn them into the same routines. That's okay, because in the other games, plot is ancillary to the gameplay itself. By taking a different route and not making greater design concessions you have a plot that doesn't gel with what's happening on-screen.
This is especially apparent when it comes to motivation. The game pushes the whole 'gotta make a living' motivation on you over and over, even though fairly early in the game, by the time of 'Three Leaf Clover' you have no need for money anymore. So you have Niko, the reformed killer, trying to make a life for himself taking missions to kill people even though he doesn't need the money. In other words, you descend into being the same sociopathic thug Claude was, except now the game's pretending you're not.
So that's the fundamental problem with the plot, already enough to make it be bad.
There's two main plots in the game. The first one, the one that occupies most of the game is the 'immigrant story', the story of Niko trying a fresh start, free from his life as a smuggler/slaver. They tie in at the end, but more on that later.
The other is the revenge story, Niko trying to find the person who betrayed his squad. The second is handled somewhat better than the first -- revenge is something that fits better into the GTA formula, into the sort of character 'development' we see. It still writes itself into a corner, only to have a deus ex machina bring Darko over for resolution, which is unsurprising but decent. The plot itself, or rather, Niko's desire is sprung up somewhat out of the blue, and the character Bernie really only serves as an excuse for gay jokes, since apparently Brucie isn't enough. But that's nitpicking.
The real problem is in how the main plot develops. Like I said, it starts off strong. The whole business with Dimitri, the destruction of the cab company, those are all good. I'd have liked a choice when shooting Vladimir, rather than murdering a man in cold blood, but it was done well enough.
Even a lot of the McReary stuff is done well. Except for two very important parts: Kate and the murder of Francis/Derrick. They establish this rapport with the whole family, but then they lose a great opportunity to explore the sort of impact murdering one of the boys would have on the relationship. Instead, after the scripted event at the cemetary, they mostly pretend it hasn't happened. As for Kate, she's this bland woman whose main quality is that she's a virgin, and that somehow makes her superior to the other females you're supposed to date. They want you to care so badly about her but don't know how to carry it out.
Along the same lines, Michelle's character is never delved into. Why is ULPC making her whore herself out to you? ULPC itself is poorly established; some shadowy government agency that otherwise completely out of place in the game and is mostly used as a bridge to the final mafia organization, the hook that gets Pegorino to become an enemy.
In fact, the whole middle of the game is pretty bare of plot development. You can kill Playboy X or Dwayne, but there's absolutely no plotline repercussions to either -- you just get a new person to go on man-dates with (or not). There's a ridiculously contrived moment where, after running to Bohan poor as churchmice, all of a sudden Roman calls you and says, 'Hey, I've bought a condo in Central Park West because I'm rich!' because they want to give you a safehouse in Algonquin. Later on he turns super poor again, though, because it's necessary for plot. Gambling's convenient that way. (I have to admit I don't remember if this is before or after they kidnap him for gambling debts.)
So you have this whole bunch of non-development, with the missions degenerating into stupid Sopranos nonsense, complete with an even more annoying Joe Pesci-alike.
And so we work towards the conclusion. They give you this option: kill Dimitri or do business with him? On this they hinge your relationship with Kate. Now, remember, Kate is as interesting as white bread and they haven't really been able to establish why you need more money, since you're likely to still be sitting on a few hundred thousand from the bank job. Not to mention that though Dimitri has been a thorn in your side, Bulgarin has been with him this whole time, and Bulgarin is far more intimidating than accountant-like Dimitri. Too bad that Bulgarin, the reason you fled Europe, the reason you're in America dies off-camera. Killing Dimitri is a much more interesting mission than doing the deal, which is interesting considering how much worse that ending is afterwards (well, except for the part where Kate dies).
And so we have the actual conclusion. After shoehorning you into an ill-fitting decision, they then go and pull the tired old cliche of having your 'loved one' get killed during Roman's wedding. It's tired heartstring manipulation, and not even particularly well-done. Roman is likable, his relationship to Niko is actually believable, but Kate? If you make that choice, Roman only shows real romantic interest in her like 5 minutes before she gets killed.
An interesting aside, here. The game tries to trace a parallel between the Darko Brevic/squad betrayal and the revenge on Dimitri. A strong point from Darko Brevic is that revenge is fairly pointless and hollow. But here they're not saying quite that: no matter what happens, Niko loses! Revenge or no revenge, the person he loves most dies. Was there a message, then, or is it just 'shit happens'? I'd accept it if the game were more nihilistic in tone, but it's just a total reversal from any sort of character development they've been trying to convince you Niko's been through.
And then the final showdown; Pegorino is a far worse antagonist than Dimitri, though neither is great. Almost all gravitas is lost with the final chase (again, Pegorino is worse -- dirt bike vs. motorboat is almost a self-parody) and the final moment at the Statue is, again, really tired. It's supposed to be poignant, but it's fairly obvious and anti-climactic, at the end.
This is especially apparent when it comes to motivation. The game pushes the whole 'gotta make a living' motivation on you over and over, even though fairly early in the game, by the time of 'Three Leaf Clover' you have no need for money anymore. So you have Niko, the reformed killer, trying to make a life for himself taking missions to kill people even though he doesn't need the money. In other words, you descend into being the same sociopathic thug Claude was, except now the game's pretending you're not.
So that's the fundamental problem with the plot, already enough to make it be bad.
There's two main plots in the game. The first one, the one that occupies most of the game is the 'immigrant story', the story of Niko trying a fresh start, free from his life as a smuggler/slaver. They tie in at the end, but more on that later.
The other is the revenge story, Niko trying to find the person who betrayed his squad. The second is handled somewhat better than the first -- revenge is something that fits better into the GTA formula, into the sort of character 'development' we see. It still writes itself into a corner, only to have a deus ex machina bring Darko over for resolution, which is unsurprising but decent. The plot itself, or rather, Niko's desire is sprung up somewhat out of the blue, and the character Bernie really only serves as an excuse for gay jokes, since apparently Brucie isn't enough. But that's nitpicking.
The real problem is in how the main plot develops. Like I said, it starts off strong. The whole business with Dimitri, the destruction of the cab company, those are all good. I'd have liked a choice when shooting Vladimir, rather than murdering a man in cold blood, but it was done well enough.
Even a lot of the McReary stuff is done well. Except for two very important parts: Kate and the murder of Francis/Derrick. They establish this rapport with the whole family, but then they lose a great opportunity to explore the sort of impact murdering one of the boys would have on the relationship. Instead, after the scripted event at the cemetary, they mostly pretend it hasn't happened. As for Kate, she's this bland woman whose main quality is that she's a virgin, and that somehow makes her superior to the other females you're supposed to date. They want you to care so badly about her but don't know how to carry it out.
Along the same lines, Michelle's character is never delved into. Why is ULPC making her whore herself out to you? ULPC itself is poorly established; some shadowy government agency that otherwise completely out of place in the game and is mostly used as a bridge to the final mafia organization, the hook that gets Pegorino to become an enemy.
In fact, the whole middle of the game is pretty bare of plot development. You can kill Playboy X or Dwayne, but there's absolutely no plotline repercussions to either -- you just get a new person to go on man-dates with (or not). There's a ridiculously contrived moment where, after running to Bohan poor as churchmice, all of a sudden Roman calls you and says, 'Hey, I've bought a condo in Central Park West because I'm rich!' because they want to give you a safehouse in Algonquin. Later on he turns super poor again, though, because it's necessary for plot. Gambling's convenient that way. (I have to admit I don't remember if this is before or after they kidnap him for gambling debts.)
So you have this whole bunch of non-development, with the missions degenerating into stupid Sopranos nonsense, complete with an even more annoying Joe Pesci-alike.
And so we work towards the conclusion. They give you this option: kill Dimitri or do business with him? On this they hinge your relationship with Kate. Now, remember, Kate is as interesting as white bread and they haven't really been able to establish why you need more money, since you're likely to still be sitting on a few hundred thousand from the bank job. Not to mention that though Dimitri has been a thorn in your side, Bulgarin has been with him this whole time, and Bulgarin is far more intimidating than accountant-like Dimitri. Too bad that Bulgarin, the reason you fled Europe, the reason you're in America dies off-camera. Killing Dimitri is a much more interesting mission than doing the deal, which is interesting considering how much worse that ending is afterwards (well, except for the part where Kate dies).
And so we have the actual conclusion. After shoehorning you into an ill-fitting decision, they then go and pull the tired old cliche of having your 'loved one' get killed during Roman's wedding. It's tired heartstring manipulation, and not even particularly well-done. Roman is likable, his relationship to Niko is actually believable, but Kate? If you make that choice, Roman only shows real romantic interest in her like 5 minutes before she gets killed.
An interesting aside, here. The game tries to trace a parallel between the Darko Brevic/squad betrayal and the revenge on Dimitri. A strong point from Darko Brevic is that revenge is fairly pointless and hollow. But here they're not saying quite that: no matter what happens, Niko loses! Revenge or no revenge, the person he loves most dies. Was there a message, then, or is it just 'shit happens'? I'd accept it if the game were more nihilistic in tone, but it's just a total reversal from any sort of character development they've been trying to convince you Niko's been through.
And then the final showdown; Pegorino is a far worse antagonist than Dimitri, though neither is great. Almost all gravitas is lost with the final chase (again, Pegorino is worse -- dirt bike vs. motorboat is almost a self-parody) and the final moment at the Statue is, again, really tired. It's supposed to be poignant, but it's fairly obvious and anti-climactic, at the end.
So again, I don't think Rockstar is able to actually tell a compelling story, and all of what I described is why. Maybe if they really looked hard and got all the good stuff, see who wrote it and just get those guys to write DLC it might work. Though I think the Housers are at fault for the problems in the plot, and I doubt they'd be hands-off on the new stuff.
I would suggest, though, that you learn to argue without resulting to personal attacks. I don't hate GTA4. It's an okay game with a bleh plot. The city in particular is well-constructed, far better than any other sandbox game so far, but poor mission design and lack of extra activities to keep you coming back keep it from actual greatness.
