It was a class game. Obviously it didn't have the jetpacks and missile launchers that San Andreas had because it was aiming to be a completely different game. It was a more serious game with a whole new level of depth. People expected it to be packed with as much content as SA, but that is unfair to expect considering GTA IV was Rockstar's first game on current consoles.
I thought GTA IV was just as good as SA and VC, if not better. It just had a different atmosphere that was more realistic and gritty. People complained of a lack of content, but the game actually has plenty of content but you just had to look for it. Things like the in-game TV, internet, cabaret shows etc. If you actually pay attention to those things you realise how much depth there is in there.
I think the people who hated it are just impatient kids who need a game to have non-stop fireworks and explosions for them to enjoy it.
People only think it sucked because there was less freedom and fewer side activities than in San Andreas. IMO, it's more plausible and much grittier. You're an illegal immigrant working as a hitman and a gangbanger - rising to the top through a few odd jobs and "wet work", owning the entire city Al Capone style is totally unrealistic.
I thought it was fantastic and GTA V is a definite must-have, because it immediately strikes me as GTA IV but with some of the more realistic side activities reintroduced.
The only thing I really didn't like was the constant phonecalls and having to juggle your social life and avoid letting people down. That was boring and I usually disabled that when just messing about in the city on my own.
i wanted to play it so bad but my computer couldn't run it! it was a proper new, expensive computer at the time... just not a gaming one... from what i played (before getting extremely frustrated with the sloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow gameplay and just pressing the off button on my computer each time i attempted to play) it was really fun... not as good as SA but still pretty awesome..
I think it was a great game. I think that people believe it wasn't that good because when San Andreas came out, it was released with a huge improvement from gta3. People just thought that gta iv didn't have a huge improvement on san Andreas.
I however loved San Andreas, the storyline with the gangs and everything was so fun.
(Original post by like a boss)
It just had a different atmosphere that was more realistic and gritty.
Which is great and everything but it came at the expense of fun. On all the other GTA's I could spend hours just driving around creating chaos where as on GTA IV after I'd finished the missions (which were reasonable but lacked any diversity/humour) I found there was very little for me to do. You might say this is just because I'm burned out on the concept but I can still pick up the older GTA's and have more fun than I find possible in 4.
It was a technically brilliant game, I just didn't get the same 'magic' I got from playing San Andreas, I can't put my finger on it. Maybe it's just cos I spent most of my teenage years playing SA?
I need to revisit the game and play it all the way through though, I bought it on PC and only had an average gaming computer - couldn't run it very well at all. Plus all the bloatware programs that game with the game were a bit annoying to have to deal with.
They spent so much time trying to make it perfect that it turned out to be very dull. The city is amazing, it all looks brilliant and plays nicely etc. but there's nothing really to do. The missions take ages to get going and even then they're really dull, especially around the beginning. It doesn't really feel like a game... just a crime simulator lol. Not much to do outside of the missions either... multiplayer is a bit of a laugh but not great.