There is some validity to his argument. Having not played a GTA before IV since the playstation 1 versions, I can't really say I feel the same pain. IV is a new experience for me, and it exceeded all my expectations. However, coming from a long-time fan of the series like John, there are accuracies in his points. Enough to say that it killed the GTA series? No. R* took major steps in the massive overhaul they did with IV. Things had to be let go in order to achieve proper mechanics which John feels IV lacks. For instance, John was irritated about the driving and how restricted it is. In a GTA game, I can see where someone would want to just screw around and drive off buildings without getting any damage, fly around corners without spinning out, and simply reek havoc on everything in sight with very little consequence. But when you think about the franchise, and what it stands for, those things don't really fit.INSANEdrive wrote:And now the another side to spur conversation.
From the beginning, GTA was meant to be a fairly realistic simulator. The term "sandbox" which the franchise is often called has become considerably skewed in definition. None of the games were ever really meant to be 100% "do what ever the hell you want" style games. But in past games, technology had considerably more limits, and in the older games, GTA was almost as realistic as technology aloud. Otherwise the game would have shifted the polar opposite and become to restricted from the beginning. My point, IV is what I think GTA was intended to be like from the beginning, but now they have the power to achieve it.
So in regards to poor John, I'm afraid he'll have to get over it this time around. I'm sure there will be plenty more GTAs in the series, so maybe he'll get something along his lines in the future.
