Submit a Story
Register
Get Started
Webmaster Tools
14 hours 48 mins ago
198
The 8 Worst Game Character Makeovers Ever
130
New Hentai Game ... Aimed at 12 Year Olds?
19 hours 27 mins ago
115
Feminists are upset over "Fat Princess"
22 hours 33 mins ago
113
Rumor: MAJOR PS3 exclusive to be announced on August 3rd!
19 hours 27 mins ago
102
360/PS3/Wii: Which does best in different genres?
11 hours 27 mins ago
100
5 Reasons FFXIII On The XBOX360 Wont Kill The Playstation
13 hours 14 mins ago
94
Never Before Seen Final Fantasy Versus XIII Video
13 hours 38 mins ago
82
FF7 Remake/Spin-Off Possible?
10 hours 17 mins ago
Comments with -10 or lower "thumbs" are removed from display.
I'm just wondering if there's ANYTHING wrong with the game at all and if so, whether people would have the balls to bring it up.
pWheelie and Moonrise read this:
Seriously, I still don't understand why people think 10/10 means perfect.
Also im just letting you know what 10 means why its rated that way.
Poor online setups, graphical glitches, and an overall "boxed in" feeling from the game detract from it. Add in that little has really changed from the past games other than an overall change in "style", going from cartoonish to more rugged and raw, and there isn't a whole lot to be really awestruck about when you play this game. The story, although "darker" than in some of the other games, follows the exact same plot curve that the previous games did. The cover system was a nice addition, but certainly not something so big as to give the game a huge boost in overall rating. Really, the biggest real change from the past games was the addition of more mini-games.
In the end, we're still playing the same old GTA that we've all grown used to over the past few years. People may give it a 10/10 because of its mass appeal and still high fun factor, but there's plenty of room for improvement and originality is highly lacking.
As for the rating system, It wasn't just for you it was for the guy I replied to as well. People think 10s means perfect when it doesn't. Which was my point.
Originality is a difficult to achieve, but GTA IV didn't do a bad job. The only competition related to this is Saints Row...what's originality have to do with anything here, anyways?
Vice City had quite a bit of glitches (until the PC version came out), but it got near-"perfect" scores, as did III.
Creativity is a big deal. I know I grew pretty tired with story mode about 1/3 of the way through because it felt like I had done it all before already (and guess what? I did, on three separate occasions). I'm not saying that we need some groundbreaking story, but for God's sake don't you think it would be nice if there was some change in plot development? How is it an engaging story when we've seen it all before. If you're going to give each aspect of a game a similar weight in rating (which many reviewers do), then you can't possibly give GTAIV a 10/10. Yes, it's a very fun game, but not 10/10 great.
I think you too are putting that 10/10 rating high up on a pedestal, reachable only to games that you see fit to be up there...that's fine, that's normal, personal preference, our own opinions and thoughts on these games will differ. But regarding this game, the majority sees otherwise. I don't let the little grips about the game get to me, as I've avoided high anticipation for it and any spoilers, only watching the trailers. That being said, I'd rate this a 9.8/10. I've yet to run into anything majorly disappointing for me, but I would admit that the online setup could use work. Still, the entire Liberty City as our playground online? That's something.
To me, and likely the majority, the good outweighs the bad here by far. The introduction of online, the huge city at our mercy, gameplay additions, it is definitely a solid sequel. Sure the story seems re-used at some points, but hell until you mentioned it, I didn't even notice. I haven't played a GTA game in years, and don't remember how their stories went. To me, this has a more compelling story than the others, and I'm sure to remember this one for years to come. But seriously, what can they do with a story? For a GTA game, it's mostly about making hits, stealing cars, the whole nine. It's not a cumulative sequel, either, like the MGS series being canon in all of it's games. GTA's more like Final Fantasy if you ask me, not by genre or anything, but the refurbished stories and such.
But anyways, my question to you is this: What game(s) do you think deserves a 10/10, that's out, that you've played thoroughly, etc.? I'm just wondering.
I didn't say it was a bad game, did I? Of course the good outweigh the bad, but since when does that make a game 10/10 quality? I know a lot of games with negatives that are outweighed by their good points, but that doesn't make them 10/10 quality, does it? The story of the game is repetitive, time consuming, and at this point somewhat monotonous because most people have played it three times over already in previous installments of the series. It really seems that they're giving the game a 10/10 for its genre more than anything else, because the real fun in this game is simply running around, stealing cars, and killing people. It seems that everyone is content with the rest of the game being relatively normal as long as they can just go around and kill people for fun whenever they want.
As for games that I would give 10's? I'm an RPG gamer, so most of them belong to that category, but I'll give you a list:
Final Fantasy VI
Chrono Trigger
Final Fantasy Tactics
Star Ocean II
Suikoden II
Super Mario World
Metal Gear Solid
Grand Theft Auto III
Mario Kart 64
Now that may seem like a lot, but consider that I rate games based within their genre alone and not compared to every other game in existence. I'm actually relatively "easy" when it comes to game ratings compared to some of these sites, but I also ignore hype and actually pay attention to detail when looking at games.
Super Mario World
Metal Gear Solid
Metal Gear Solid 3
Final Fantasy IV
Soul Calibur
Legend of Zelda: OoT
Out of fanboy-ism, I'd add Ninja Gaiden, Final Fantasy VIII, and others.
Of course if a game has more negatives than positives it wouldn't be a 10/10. -_- Some reviewers are giving the game 10/10 to keep fans reading, whilst others are doing it out of honesty. While I do agree that 10/10s shouldn't be given out from hype and genre, I still believe that GTA IV deserves the ratings in the long run. This'll happen with most extremely anticipated games, unfortunately, due to reasons mentioned above, reviewers striving for readers/viewers.
We don't have to listen to these reviews, of course. They shouldn't play too big a role in deciding whether or not to get a game, but then again, giving it "perfect" scores would cause us to hype it to the max, possibly being disappointed when we get it. That's how myself and others felt with Halo 3. When I look at it that way, I do better understand your argument.
And lag? I've yet to get any. Granted I haven't played much GTA online, but yeah, no lag there.
Holy crap, Seeker, Eric, calm down.
To be fair, my personal bias would give FFIV a 10/10 but I actually played VI first and it did have more features.
"problems remain almost as permanent blemishes for the series. The pacing of the first several hours can only be described as tedious, too many missions are carbon copies of each other with a new coat of paint, and as good as the gunplay may be it could still be better...some of the absurd satire draws far too much attention to itself, and in turn, renders the game thematically confused at times."
Also, read the review before making comments. Negative things are actually said about the game. Just because the game got a 5/5 doesn't mean it's perfect, it just means it's a very good game. Our type of scale seems to work much better than a 100 point scale for differentiating between great/good/bad games.
By Gamespot's definition it does mean perfect. By IGN's definition, it doesn't.
IGN says no game is perfect. 'Nuff said. GTA IV has flaws, but can still get a 10 by IGN's definition.
Gamespot says a 10/10 means the game is perfect, by the standards in place at time of release, that it "could not have been improved upon in any meaningful way".
Is GTA IV perfect in that way? Is there no meaningful way in which it could be improved? Hell no. The game has serious flaws, that if eradicated, would make the game far better. The game is so good when it works, those flaws are forgiven by most reviewers (and I agree with them). However, Gamespot's definition is very explicit, and GTA IV should clearly not earn a 10 by that standard. I can't think of many games that would (Half-Life 1, Starcraft, etc.?)
Source
You have no idea what you're talking about, which is why you can't speak for yourself.
"Not entirely. They aren't saying it's perfect straight up, they are simply saying that the game the best of the bunch, as in, the ones that have been released in same time period and such."
You don't need to put words in their mouth, they are very explicit: a perfect game is one that "could not have been improved upon in any meaningful way". That's not a relative measuring stick, comparing it with other games; it's an entirely self-contained metric.
When they say "as perfect as a game can aspire to be at its time of release", they are explicit about what that means, too: the standard for perfection necessarily takes into account the technological limitations at time of release, with the acknowledgment that "the constantly changing standards for technology and gameplay will probably make this game obsolete". For instance, you can't diss a game in 2008 for not being photorealistic, because we don't have the technology to produce photorealistic games in 2008. Without that provision, a 10/10 in 2008 would be a 1/10 in 2018.
The Olymics analogy is meaningless, because we're not discussing what a 10 means in an Olympic diving competition, or in a dog show, or in a movie review, or over at IGN or Gamespy, we're discussing what it means at Gamespot. And guess what? We don't have to speculate about what it means at Gamespot, because they took the time to tell us exactly what they mean.
*Edit*
I agree, Seeker X, but meh, there's always the critics, complainers, over-hypers and such.
Now if you want to make the case its harder to kill cops and stuff, I'll agree with you there.
But i rather not discuss this any further cause to be honest you admitted your an RPG fan, not GTA or Sandbox fan, so with that you'll never understand.
It's a matter of public record that more people are OK with GTA getting a 10/10 than with OOT getting a 10/10, right? See: the reviews.
"Grand Theft Auto took some serious work"
I agree. This game continues to blow my mind.
"and I fail to see where there could've been huge improvements"
You're right: you "fail to see".
The game's primary flaw is the '90s, bad-Japanese-game controls (left stick turn + automatic camera). It gives you poor gaze control and creates an inconsistency with the combat controls (lock/aim button). That was obvious to me within seconds of playing the game, but it seems a lot of people don't notice this kinda stuff (consciously, anyway), so I'll try to explain.
If you are walking North in a first person shooter (FPS) and want to look over your right shoulder, you turn the camera to the right and hit left strafe. This allows you to continue moving North while looking East. In third person shooters (3PS), when done right (Splinter Cell, Gears of War, World of Warcraft, etc.), your character's body doesn't turn to the East, only his head does. Your body continues facing North, acknowledging that only your gaze is changing direction; i.e. you are looking around while walking.
Some games get this wrong by assuming you have no neck. In the first Ghost Recon, if you wanted to look East while walking North, you had to turn your entire body to the East and your character would begin side-stepping North, moving slower than normal. Freakin' stupid. They fixed this in later versions.
GTA IV also assumes you have no neck. By default, you don't even have the ability to strafe. If you want to move a foot to the left, you have to turn your entire body left and walk forward, then turn back the direction you were facing. If you pass something, you can't just take a step back, you have to turn completely around. But that's not the biggest problem.
In GTA IV, camera control is on both sticks, rather than one. The X-axis of the left stick controls turning; the camera is attached to the character's back, so it's always trying to swing behind you. The right stick also controls the camera, but it doesn't disable the automatic camera, so the two are constantly fighting. If you try to walk North while looking East in GTA IV, the camera has a tendency to swing drunkenly back and forth as you battle the automatic camera. It takes a very deft touch to hold it steady. This is the first thing I notice when I played the game. If it isn't obvious to you, go try it. Try to look anywhere but straight ahead while moving in GTA IV, then try it in another 3PS like GOW.
This is a big immersion robber, and it makes the game less cinematic. If you have proper camera control, you can make your own dramatic camera angles on the fly; this is a PITA to do in GTA IV. The sad thing is that it could have been fixed by a single option: "Automatic Camera Centering: ON/OFF". This wasn't a matter of budget constraints, it was pure design myopia.
Oddly, what saves GTA IV and allows it to work as an action game is the lock/aim button, which changes the controls to standard FPS/3PS controls! The X-axis on the left stick becomes strafing rather than turning, and turning jumps to the right stick.
This is the control inconsistency I was talking about. There's no reason to have two separate control schemes. They could have had standard 3PS controls to begin with, you wouldn't have control functions jumping from stick to stick when you locked onto a target, and you would have had better gaze control at all times.
The lock/aim button allows you to almost ignore this problem, and allows the combat set pieces to be enjoyable, but at other times, the controls lead to awkward character movement and can make it harder to soak in the sights of Liberty City the way one would like.
Everything else about this game is ****ing amazing -- art direction, sound direction, voice acting, writing, animation, physics, lighting, effects, etc. The entire $100 million dollar budget is visible in the end product, as far as I'm concerned. But it is an action game, and having wonky controls in an action game is not something you can dismiss (in fact, I usually won't even play a game with bad controls, irrespective of genre) If the game is good enough you can forgive it -- and GTA is good enough -- but without beautifully designed, elegant controls, I can't call an action game "perfect", no matter how loose your definition of that word.
The reason they probably didn't add an option to that is because GTA is not just a shooter. You're saying that the lack of complete camera control is a mistake...it's not a mistake, you said so yourself, it's fixed when you start aiming, right? That's because it switches from Roaming to Shooting controls. Not to mention when roaming, you could be pressing the X button and not using the right analog stick, so when you cut the corner, VOILA! The camera just did you a favor, and it has saved me from many troubles in both single player and online. It's also pretty hard to call it an inconsistency since there are PLENTY of other games that do the same...games like Resident Evil 4 comes to mind. You press a button and Aim mode completely changes the controls...though people didn't have a problem with that.
No, I don't believe it to be a mistake, maybe you confused GTA or you prefered GTA to have TPS controls, I gotta disagree, I'll stick with the roaming controls and the ease of switching to shooter controls with the press of a button.
That makes sense... how? If you think the automatic camera is required for driving, the option could have been "Automatic Camera Centering: ON|OFF|IN VEHICLE|ON FOOT". They didn't add the option because they didn't see the problem.
"it's not a mistake, you said so yourself, it's fixed when you start aiming, right?"
It's not fixed, it's temporarily suspended, and returns the second you let go of that button.
It's not a subtle problem. Your attempts to rationalize it remind me a lot of when Rainbox Six 3 came out. I loved that game, but made the mistake of complaining about it's aim-assist. Suddenly fanboys were jumping down my throat, calling me full of crap, saying R63 didn't have aim-assist. To me it was obvious, but the only way I was finally able to shut up the fanboys was to make a movie that made it undeniable (http://eric.tetzfamily.com/gaming/media/R63_AimAssist.wmv). I could easily make a movie showing GTA IV's camera issues just as unequivocally.
Similarly with R63, it's not enough that I love the game. If I don't think it's a flawless beyond reproach, I'm a heathen. It's gaming as religion. It's why I stopped frequenting gaming message boards to begin with.
"It's also pretty hard to call it an inconsistency since there are PLENTY of other games that do the same..."
It's inconsistent with itself. I'm not talking about other games.
"games like Resident Evil 4 comes to mind. You press a button and Aim mode completely changes the controls...though people didn't have a problem with that."
RE4 controls were wonky, too, but they were so much better than every previous RE title -- a series which historically had the most reviled control scheme in videogame history -- that people were beside themselves, "Finally, a playable RE!"
The thing is, there were even apologists for the old RE 'remote-control-human' controls. But there's a reason that virtually no games used those controls any more. There's a reason that most third person games have converged on the same scheme. That's the way the videogame industry evolves. Game creators borrow solutions to design problems from each other.
"That's because it switches from Roaming to Shooting controls."
The point is there is absolutely no point to having two different schemes. There's no advantage. Standard TPS controls let you do everything GTA IV's 'roaming' controls do, and more. They are quantifiably better, in more ways than one.
The 'one stick' controls are, at best, an attempt to make the controls noob-friendly, which is why so many Japanese games use(d) them. The problem is, it's 2008, many years past Halo, SOCOM, Spinter Cell, etc. -- players have proven their ability to handle manual camera control. At the very least, it should have been an option. When you reject even that, it's hard not to see you as fanatical.
"Not to mention when roaming, you could be pressing the X button and not using the right analog stick, so when you cut the corner, VOILA! The camera just did you a favor"
You're assuming the run button is immovable. If they had standard 3PS controls, 'run' could have been on a shoulder button and 'pick up/interact' moved to a face button, allowing you to avoid 'neck brace syndrome' while running (which, by the way, is another flaw with GTA IV's controls, but I'm sure you'll find a way to rationalize that into a feature, "It.. um.. should be hard to turn your head while running! Yeah, that's the ticket!")
I understand what you're getting through, I know GTA has it's problems...the biggest problem I had was with the jumping/climbing, really. But I still can't really imagine GTA with TPS controls.
Welcome to the World of Survival horror?
THERE lies the point. The option to do so, there I will agree. You and I have our preferences and using a TPS layout would be completely different from past GTA games' controls layouts and not everybody would've welcomed that (we already had to get used to the new gameplay as it was).
Again, all about preference. My tastes come from the other GTA games which had the same basic layout. I really don't want the "Run/Sprint" function on a shoulder button, especially when you gotta tap it repeatedly to go faster.
For me, and others who feel as I do.
"It goes without saying that for driving to work, you need to know where you're going."
And?
"You can STILL move the camera around, again...where's the problem?"
You can move the camera while on foot, too. I already described where 'the problem is' in exhaustive detail. I'm not going to start repeating myself.
"But I still can't really imagine GTA with TPS controls."
Well, that's a failure of imagination, because I easily can.
"Welcome to the World of Survival horror?"
What's your point? If lots of people do something bad, it's good? RE's old controls were completely indefensible.
The purpose of a game's control is to translate user intent into game action as transparently as possible (that's the whole premise of the Wii). Miyamoto showed the best way to do this with a joystick in Super Mario 64: point the stick where you want to go, relative to the camera, and your character goes there. Couldn't be more simple.
RE's control scheme was 'remote control human'. If you wanted to go right, relative to the camera, you didn't push right on the stick... you had to rotate the character until he was facing right, then push up on the stick. You actually had to deal with the same control inversion problem that you do with RC vehicles: if the character was facing the camera, to turn to the left (relative to your perspective) you had to push right on the stick. *lol* It was so screwed up.
I let my kids try RE back in the day, and they were baffled by it. They figured out Mario 64 instantly. That's a quantifiable difference between a good control scheme and a bad one. One is obvious, intuitive, transparent, etc. and the other is not.
Of course, there were plenty of RE apologists, who confused the fact that they had adapted to a bad control scheme with that control scheme actually being good.
"My tastes come from the other GTA games which had the same basic layout."
Don't confuse taste with comfort level. Yes, you are comfortable with what you're used to, but I guarantee you (sadly, this is inherently unprovable, but I have no doubt that it's true), if GTA IV had the option for standard 3PS controls as an alternative to 'legacy' controls, you would be using the more modern controls. Because they work better. You would get over your nostalgia for the old controls real fast.
Search your feelings, Luke. You know it to be true.
Yeah, I know...how you can't move the camera when moving, I already know that. Not exactly see the urgency/need of moving the camera while on the run, but hey, the option isn't there so I will agree that it's not pleasing everyone.
Game relied on a single way to control your character through different camera angles. Very different way of gaming (since Alone in the Dark) not that many people wanted it (although RE does have a huge fanbase).
That's certainly up for debate though. Not every modern control scheme pleases everyone. I'd give it a try if it was the default set up though. When I first tried the new layout, I instantly changed it to the classic layout and felt more at home. Tried the new layout later on, it was easier to get used to because there wasn't much different. TPS controls is straying WAY off but having seamless camera control doesn't sound like a bad idea...but you still can't guarantee that it will please everyone.
I get the theoretical reason for that control scheme, but the point is that in practice, it's complete s***, which is why no games use it any more, not even Resident Evil (which was the longest holdout, by far).
Similarly, the Mario 64 scheme could theoretically be very difficult, because your control inputs change meaning when the camera moves, forcing you to constantly adjust to keep moving in the same direction. In practice, you aren't even aware of it, your brain does the corrections automatically.
You have a new design problem (for instance, third person control). A wide variety of solutions are tried. Over time, it becomes clear that some solutions work better than others, and they end up being adopted by other designers. Eventually it because a near-standard, for no other reason than it's proven to work. But there are always holdouts (like RE, which took forever to finally see the error of their ways).
"Not exactly see the urgency/need of moving the camera while on the run"
Well, we obviously play games differently. For me, especially in a game world as rich as GTA's, I want virtual presence. I don't stare straight ahead when walking around any environment, real or virtual; I look around.
I guess people born without necks, or who have been in a neck brace their entire life, or who simply lack the mechanical dexterity to manage two joysticks at once, would prefer to have their view constantly forced forward. For everyone else, free, intuitive, gaze control increases immersion. Yeah, it takes a little practice to master manual camera control, but the reward is worth it. If my girlfriend can do it (complete non-gamer until she met me), anybody can.
See, you killed it. Blown it right out of proportion...would've been a good and valid point if you couldn't maneuver the camera AT ALL. Bottom line, your only problem is moving the camera while moving. Like I said, miniscule problem, nothing to worry about. Yes, it could've been worked on but it wasn't...does that mean it failed?
*lol* That's the same as "if it was wrong, they wouldn't do it", or better yet, "if they keep doing it, it must be right!"
These are all fallacious arguments, because they presume that Rockstar is incapable of making a mistake. The same faulty logic could be used to justify RE's asstacular control scheme.
"This would've been a huge deal to everyone, this would've been a fatal flaw."
Highly unlikely. It's a huge deal to me, and I don't consider it anywhere near a "fatal flaw" (and I never suggested it was).
"problem is that you're blowing it out of proportion"
No, I'm just trying to explain myself. I already know what I mean. Clearly you don't. So I keep trying to find other ways of saying it, looking for analogies that will make it more obvious.
I'm having more R63 flashbacks. Just like then, I could clear this up in about 2 seconds with a video. Maybe I'll start working on one tonight, though it will take a while because I need to capture footage from multiple games for maximum contrast.
"nor is it a huge improvement and that is my point"
Perhaps it wouldn't be a huge improvement to you (though I don't believe that; it's just a failure of imagination, IMO), but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be to me.
Imagine the game had no option to invert the camera, and you normally play inverted (or visa versa). This is a major flaw. But I tell you it's not an issue, because I don't play inverted. Do you see? Yes, inverted/non-inverted is merely a 'preference', but if the game does not cater to your preference in such a way that it hampers your enjoyment of the game, it is a flaw. You are fortunate, because apparently you don't look around in games while moving. I do. So to me, having the camera constantly trying to force it's way up my ass, despite me telling it not to, is a flaw. Period. And I'm not the only person to complain about this.
"Bottom line, your only problem is moving the camera while moving."
Um, when the *bleep* are you not moving? Yes, if you stand in one place, the camera issue goes away! Bravo! You fixed the problem! I'll I have to do is... not play the game! That's about as meaningful as saying, "Bottom line, the framerate issue you're having is only when the TV is on."
It would be a bit of a waste of time. Point is, I know what you're saying, but I don't miss it...and a lot of people don't either, as you can see with the game's feedback and all.
If I were to tell you that I'm a fan of RE's controls, what would you say? "I feel sorry for you"? Something that can't be fixed with just options. Your situation is hardly a problem.
I gotta ask, does the lack of camera control not make things easy for you? Or is it just because you can't look around?
The point of the statement was that it is hardly something to penalize the game for.
X Edit: Hold on, you CAN move the camera AT LEAST walking around, even running around though you'll have some trouble trying to move the camera and running at the same time. See I knew there was something off here.
Holy crap! You stated it. Conversation over.
"and a lot of people don't either, as you can see with the game's feedback and all"
The controls get more negative feedback than any other single element of the game. The praise is typically lavished on the amazing virtual city, the charismatic protagonist, and engaging narrative.
"If I were to tell you that I'm a fan of RE's controls, what would you say?"
If you really believed that, and weren't just saying it to be devil's advocate, I'd say you're a ****ing idiot. Like I said, the controls are indefensible, unless you're an an RC pilot who needs practice dealing with control inversion. *lol*
The only even remotely plausible justification I've heard for RE's controls (and this is a classic case of fanboy rationalization), is that the controls are supposed to suck, because it makes it scarier when you get attacked; it's like being in a bad dream.
"I gotta ask, does the lack of camera control not make things easy for you?"
It makes it hard to control the camera, with no compensatory benefit. That's a design flaw. There exists an alternative control scheme that lets you do everything you can do with the current control scheme, and more. That's a design flaw, or at least an omission/oversight.
Of course, for that segment of the population that sucks at camera control and therefore doesn't mind always staring straight ahead or is not even aware that there's another way to play 3D games (and I'll grant you, this may be a lot of gamers) they'll won't notice it the flaw, because they are only using a subset of the available controls anyway. But I'm not talking about them, am I?
"The point of the statement was that it is hardly something to penalize the game for."
Again, it's clearly not something you would penalize it for, because you don't like to (or are unable to) look around while moving. It's something that I am penalizing it for, because I do like to look around while moving.
"Hold on, you CAN move the camera AT LEAST walking around"
You didn't know this? So you've been rabidly defending something when you barely know how it works? Why am I not surprised?
That's how Survival Horror worked back then without analog sticks. Didn't really expect you to know that one.
No, it only makes it easier to control the camera, nothing more, nothing less. The rest depends on the character's movements, nothing to do with the control scheme.
It's actually funny, you know? You had me going...I honestly thought you were acting as if the camera control was abysmal. But I realize you're barely complaining because you're having difficulties enjoying your sight when you're walking. Then you go on a roll as if changing it to a TPS scheme is radically changing everything...when it all it does is ease the Camera movement. Here's a little advice though, get used to the camera angle button (Select button ont he PS3), you got a wide range to choose from.
My point stands still, there is NO huge improvement here. Doesn't matter if you have difficulty moving the camera while walking (AND ONLY SLIGHTLY), while it's an imporvement, it's barely *bleep*ing nit picking.
Difficulty turning around is another symptom of what I've been talking about. There are no control issues with jumping that I've experienced, other than the rather lame animation.
"That's how Survival Horror worked back then without analog sticks. Didn't really expect you to know that one."
Thanks for proving my point: that control scheme was forced by hardware constraints, not because it was an ideal way to control a character in 3D space. Which is why defending those controls as if they were actually good, in particular when they persisted after the advent of analog joysticks, is ****ing moronic.
"No, it only makes it easier to control the camera [..] nothing to do with the control scheme."
Um, camera control is part of the control scheme, a crucial part. Your rationalizations are getting more and more nonsensical.
"Then you go on a roll as if changing it to a TPS scheme is radically changing everything...
Another straw man. First you exaggerate the severity of my complaint ("fatal flaw!"), now you exaggerate the severity of the change ("radical change!")
"when it all it does is ease the Camera movement...shit, and I'm the idiot?"
First of all, this comment has absolutely nothing to do with text you're replying to (which was me pointing out how textbook-fanboy it was for you to be passionately defending the control scheme when you didn't even know how it works *lol*).
Second... wow.. are you 12 or something? Do you actually play videogames? The camera has been one of the most important aspects of any third person game, since the advent of 3D games.
My point is that it's possible to make a rather minor tweak to GTA IV's controls which simultaneously (1) simplifies them, by removing their modality, (2) improves them, by increasing camera control, allowing strafing, and the opportunity for more realistic animation, such as Nico being able to turn his head (3) sacrifices nothing. The only people who lose are imagination-less stick-in-the-muds who prefer cold comfort for change.
No, it's not a 'fatal flaw' to begin with, no it's not a 'radical change', but it is -- by all metrics but one (nostalgia) -- a superior design. If they really wanted to keep the scheme the same for historical reasons, a more modern control scheme should have been available as an option. The lack of one is a flaw.
Fair enough, but the fact that you're penalizing because of a small and miniscule flaw is hardly rational. Oh and I thought TPS controls would've been able to do better and more?
Let's get my point straight. What I'm trying to get to you is that your complaint is a hiccup AT BEST...you're making it seem like it is a really bad flaw because of personal interest...we're not talking about personal intereswt here, we're talking about the severity of the so-called flaw.
No shit? Let's move on, we both know that GTA has no such problems.
TPS = sacrificing face buttons. Considering GTA uses the face buttons often, that's not a minor change. But hey, while does sound that sound like a good idea; it's still not missed.
Ok, they'll probably get to it next time. In the mean time you got multiple camera angles for you to choose from...honestly, Niko's slow movements are a lot worse than your personal camera problem.
Another straw man. First it was "fatal flaw". Now it's "miniscule flaw". At least you've run out of extremes. You'll have to find a new way to mischaracterize my argument. *lol*
You're making it seem like a 'hiccup' because of person interest.
See how that works?
It does, as I've already described.
The face buttons are not used for anything that must be done while moving, except for jumping. Halo (and a thousand clones) have shown that this is not a problem.
They won't, because if they were even aware of it, they would have had an option to turn the automatic camera off in this version. This is a design blind spot. Controls have always been a weak spot for Rockstar, and while they're greatly improved in this version (primarily by providing FPS controls during combat and a cover system that makes control glitches less frustrating), they are still wonky.
It's like any Bethesda game is likely to be hugely ambitious, but have shitty animation (and probably numerous bugs). An Id or Epic game is likely to have perfect controls, world class graphics, with a throw-away-story, cheesy/generic art direction, etc. It's just a matter of the strength/weakness of the main players at a given studio.
Rockstar games are strong on simulation and subversive humor, but tends to fall down a bit in controls, and GTA IV, while clearly being their best effort to date, is no exception there.
Unfortunately, the blow jobs they are getting from critics, and all the sales records they are smashing, virtually guarantee no serious reevaluation will be done of the controls. Those designers are pretty sure their shit doesn't stink right about now, and who can blame them?
*rofl* Let's hope that was an attempt at humor.