GTA IV - 360 & Ps3

[Uli]

I've not played the 360 version yet (will next week) so it's hard to say without having played both versions. Whichever version you go for, the differences aren't going to be gigantic - the shimmering (as Chain says) is still there in the PS3 version. There just doesn't seem to be as much pop-in.

guess a lot of people here will look forward to your report Concept, me included

[mr_woo]

->Open Spoiler<-

There are pigeons around the city that you can kill

They are also supposed to

->Open Spoiler<-

have an audio ping Crackdown style which lets you know where they are as you get close to them!

I'm really REALLY looking forward to getting this on tuesday, I never notice graphical defects etc as I'm too daft so no doubt I'll think it's very pretty I'm just happy to be getting a new GTA! woohoo!

[Concept]

To me the 360 over VGA on this is better than the ps3 over hdmi , its really blurry on the ps3 hides the lack of AA i suppose, just looks so much cleaner , and is it me or does it seem smoother overall on the 360?, anyway stunning on both systems best game this year so far i would say

I keep flirting between HDMI and Component. For some reason the set I'm using really likes 1080i over the latter so bluriness (apart from the distant filter) isn't much of an issue. I'd imagine 1:1 VGA gives a pretty crisp image on the 360 version though.

I think it's the free-aim (I have auto-aim off completely and would recommend that to everyone) that gives it so much more impact. Working my way through a building, popping headshots with a pistol is quite clinical.

Yeah, I'm using free-aim. I think it's also due to the fact that bodies have a proper sense of weight to them now (it's more than just simple rag doll physics) so when you put someone down with a shotgun they crumple realistically. It's not going to affect any of us, but I can see politicians using the game as a football in the coming months when they need something easy to boost their image.

Are you using the bonnet cam? I'd say the cars feel fairly poor in 3rd person but are brilliant fun from first person.

Aye, I've not used it much but I'll give it a try. I had been using the furthest out third-person camera until now.

Chain - Previous GTAs

->Open Spoiler<-

did that in Ammunation shops. No doubt further missions will unlock them.

Just did a mission for Brucie where

->Open Spoiler<-

I hacked my first police computer and was later informed that Vigilante missions are accessed that way, so yeah, I agree that Rockstar are clearly trying to side-step the usual gamey conventions. It works for the most part too. A lot of the design is simple, logical and cleverly executed.

[Matt]

Chain - Previous GTAs

->Open Spoiler<-

did that in Ammunation shops. No doubt further missions will unlock them.

Fair enough. Been ages since I played one, having found SA too dumb.

->Open Spoiler<-

Still you'd expect something a bit "realistic", like only seeing pictures of the weapons rather than "Display Models". I doubt back alley illegal gun shops keep plastic replicas on display

[Concept]

I know what you mean, but even with all the subtle changes it's still a game. I suppose they could have handled it more subtly, but then people who just want to blow **** up would probably be complaining. I haven't got there yet with him but

->Open Spoiler<-

when you max out your respect and mission status with Jacob then I think he's supposed to offer you weapons on the go you can phone him up for

. That's what I remember reading anyway.

Gah. Stole a boat and was so close to avoiding maximum wanted stars when a chopper turned up.

I'm just a little under 20 hours in now and I'm still not on the middle island. I thought I'd be there by now (want to see Star Junction).

[Rossco]

20 hours and still at the first section!? Thats awesome!

I keep reading everyones wee spoiler quotes, don't want to but I love hearing the stories of what people have been doing etc.

So also, when you die you keep your weapons right? You only lose them when you get BUSTED!!!?

[Concept]

If you include Bohan (a mini extention connected to the first island) then yeah, and I'm doing missions and not just idling about. I'd say there's probably a good 60 hours worth of gameplay judging from what I've played, and probably up to 80-100 if you don't rush your way through the game. If you consider the amount of work it needs to build a next-gen title these days and that most single-player experiences are between 5-10 hours, then that's not too bad. : P

[Matt]

Certainly is big, no question. And not as dauntingly huge as SA. I hope the city becomes familiar the same way I could navigate GTA3 without maps - I knew that city inside out

Rossco, I've never been busted, so can't answer that. The cops seem to want to kill me rather than arrest me! Getting killed, you respawn with weapons, which is a welcome plus - saves you having to muscle up again before repeating a mission.

[Concept]

I've been busted a couple of times. One good thing is that you can trick them by putting your hands up and run. It catches the police off-guard.

I'm having trouble learning the city, though it's mostly due to the density and that there's more detail. A few places are starting to become familiar in general tone, but I doubt I'll be able to remember the layout like I did with III or VC.

[Matt]

Actually I found VC a bit samey-samey, hard to distinguish the location I was in quickly.

[Concept]

I didn't find it that difficult to get used to but it was flat and boring compared to San Andreas (the 80s nostalgia didn't do much for me because I was about five years too young, so can't remember anything of early-mid part of the decade).

[Leon Retro]

I
Yes yes it's not about the graphics, but they do help! Maybe next gen we'll start getting AA in all games.

It's about the graphics for me. GTA3 blew me away back in 2001. Yeah.. it looks poor now.. but back then it was simply amazing.

I've been put off buying this by all the talk of disappointing visuals. You've said that the game looks to be running at less than 720P - with a muddy soft look. I don't want to see that.

If Rockstar - who achieved so much with GTA3 and made a ton of cash from the series, can't deliver the best visuals on the planet, then what the hell is going on?

Maybe I will be surprised, but reading this thread I've hardly read any comments about being being blown away by the visuals.

Driving around doing missions - looking at airports - and swimming, just isn't enough enticement for me to buy another GTA.

Has anyone been amazed by the visuals?

[Leon Retro]

I didn't find it that difficult to get used to but it was flat and boring compared to San Andreas (the 80s nostalgia didn't do much for me because I was about five years too young, so can't remember anything of early-mid part of the decade).

You either like the 80s, or not. If they make a Mafia game set in the 30s - I won't have nostalgia for it, but if it's done well, I'd enjoy taking a trip to another era.

Vice City was basically "GTA does Miami Vice" ... That is one little bit of 80s culture. San Andreas didn't show a world that many British people can identify with - it delivered a funny stereotypical 90s L.A environment.

I think it's strange when people go on about "Nostalgia" ... You don't play a medieval game because you want to feel a nostalgic thrill.

[Rossco]

Mate, even when GTA3 came out, it looked ****! Compare it with another game of it's time of a smaller scale and it will look worse. So you can't expect GTA4 to have "the best visuals on the planet". It's technically not possible to do, as it's a different kind of game to the likes of GoW or CoD4 which both look bloody awesome but are generally on rails shooters in smaller enclosed spaces.

This point has been re-iterated countless times.

[Concept]

Leon Ahoy! - if you're talking Mass Effect/Gears (when UE3 is behaving itself) impressive, no. The game also lacks similar draw distance detail in Assassin's Creed/Lost Cause. The lighting system is gorgeous though and geninuely can make places look completely different depending on the time of day/weather condition.

If you put it into perspective, the game is running a **** load of different behavioural routines for the pedestrians, it's got a genuinely fresh physics system, a real-time shadow system where (from what I've seen) nothing is pre-baked and loads of incidental atmospheric effects. Then there's the rain, water, HDR, that lighting system etc. The fact that on the PS3 version there's relatively little near-scale LoD environmental changes is a plus as well.

I guess it's more a case of loads of little details adding up on top of one another to produce something which you appreciate over time. The game does look muddy but (to me at least) the trade off is worth it if it had to be made.