Grand Theft Auto IV – “Hail the Revol… ups, sorry, Evolution”

I don’t know about you, but right after a couple of interesting titles in 2007, I’ve found it hard to keep interest in recent games; every thing’s the same! Same genres, same mechanics, same art styles, same, same, same. It’s attack of the clones all over again. In one word: BORING. Move ON, mr. Developer. Please? Pretty please??? The way I see it, “GTA IV” had everything to succeed and turn things around: a huge budget, the backing of a series’ brand that would sell the game whichever the case, a new numerical character (hey, if the Housers think it’s important to state that, why shouldn’t I?) and all the buzz in the community, that repeatedly hauled the game as “revolutionary”, “wonderful”, “brilliant”, blah, blah, blah. But is it really so? Does GTA live up to the hype?

For a game that the media gave revolution as a tagline, “GTA IV” sure takes time to bloom… Hours into the game you’ll watch the same mechanics, the same design, the same mission structure, the same city as in past titles… again: same, same, same. The visuals are striking, sure, but hardly anything we wouldn’t expect by now. There’s also an eclectic, culturally rich soundtrack, that’s definitely the best in the series, even if it’s probably destined to be the least popular. But besides that, what’s left? A physics engine that hardly adds anything to gameplay? The cellular phone gimmick, that instead of serving gameplay, upsets you with silly phonecalls about how lonely your friends feel? Maybe it’s the Gears of War” cover combat system, but… haven’t we seen that before, and with better results in a game called er… “Gears of War”? So where’s the Revolution? Dead in the trunk, me thinks. And sure, *journalists* are quick to deliver the 10/10 “facts”: in GTA you can eat, drink, have sex, play pool, darts and arcade games, take pictures, send text messages, call 911, drunk drive, listen to radio, watch TV, surf the Internet, attend variety shows, flirt with naked girls in strip clubs, use ATM’s, etc, etc, etc; you name it, GTA has it (well, you can’t pee, but hey, nothing is perfect). The thing is, though these elements add to the sense of believability and consistency of this virtual world, they fail on their most important goal: entertainment. On that regard, “GTA IV” fails in achieving anything new. The game has, essentially, the same design as “GTA III”, going to the extreme of maintaining the same mission templates. It also fails in updating some essential elements present in more recent videogame currents, like more streamlined design, simpler controls, or even mission check-pointing (which would be essential, considering missions are composed of several lengthy sequences, that usually involve a lot of traveling).

The story does glue everything together to try and save the show: Niko Bellic’s tragic saga is the first decent script of the series (finally they got one right!), with some wonderfully depicted, morally torn characters (even if the main character is still Liberty City) and a series of well thought up social themes. Thanks to the dry wit of Niko’s remarks concerning life in the States, and the ironic nature of radio shows and commercials, the satirical nature of GTA’s universe maintains its verve in depicting modern day America, with its social paradoxes, corrupt politics, and moral inconsistencies. And it’s made all the more interesting thanks to a couple of interesting moral choices, that eventually change the ending of the game (nothing revolutionary, but still…). Yet, once again, in keeping with the industry’s flow, it’s marred by the use of the same basic narrative model as “GTA III”, which makes no sense in such a character driven narrative. Basically, you meet character -> character bitches about something -> you deal with it -> gain money -> repeat this N times -> say buhbye to character -> a new character comes along -> everything repeats again. The result is a structure that ends up leaving many interesting characters undeveloped, and that forgets each character as soon as you finish their “missions”. The social networking strategy from “San Andreas” does make a comeback through the cellphone gimmick, in an attempt to develop said characters, but the cost of some really dull minigames ends up destroying that potentially interesting story vehicle.

So why is “GTA IV” getting the glorious reviews its predecessors never had? Hype? Maybe so. In the end, I just think everyone was too eager to acclaim the game for its rich detail, absurd amount of work and sheer polish. It’s the kind of game that’s filled with those small details that really shine: the gorgeous lighting effects that can transform Liberty City into a living, moving painting, the wide array of interesting cultural activities, or those precious little moments when the game behaves exactly as you’d expect in real life. In terms of execution, it truly stands out as the grandest of all new gen titles: there’s just so much waiting to be found in this virtual “Liberty City”, that even MMO’s can pale in comparison, and it all works bug free (almost, at least). And it actually makes sense that the way forward for the series should be on a basis of “more”, instead of “new”, GTA’s always thrived on their ability to make the player explore wide open worlds, where everything is possible: freedom to go anywhere, to do anything, to be anyone – and in that regard “GTA IV” maintains the tradition. But the thing you have to ask yourself is if that “more” policy actually translates into new and solid game design ideas, and I think they don’t; GTA may have a big baggage of seemingly good ideas, but there isn’t one that you can actually name revolutionary, or that you’d actually want to replicate in another videogame. So, even though the title has a new number, it does little its predecessors haven’t done before, albeit on a smaller scale. And if you ask me, that’s one roman numeral the Houser brothers just wasted for naught.

Overall: 3/5

    • crimson
    • July 4th, 2008

    Sometimes I disagree with your reviews until I remember that your reviewing theses games in terms of art, therefore a game can still get a good overall score even if the game play fails. Saying that I pretty much agree with everything you said, finally an honest review of GTAIV, I have to wonder if Rock* just payed everyone to give the game amazing reviews.

  1. Another home run by Rui Craveirinha: a little anger between the lines and all, as expected!

    I think the big question coming from this your text concerns the wide and homogeneous opinion that has been promoted by the videogame-related media, namely the reviewers – those who attribute top scores to the game and work hard to come up with a neat finishing sentence to what is mostly a partial, uninformed description of the game they had to play and test.

    So what’s behind it? – this has bugged me for a while, too. At the present moment I believe that GTA IV had a very intricate publicity maneuver which consisted of a great deal of Hype, misinformation, but also made it very clear that the videogame industry – namely the North-American one – depended a great deal on the commercial success of this title. Critics, possibly more than fans, are subject to the hype, to the pressure, to the time restrictions and to the responsibility of providing an opinion which will then be considered and revised by editors who work for companies who earn their money with every click on advertisements, in the case of websites, or with the purchase of a copy, in the case of magazines. So the reviewer’s society went, in a way, was under a great deal of pressure in order to comply with what was expected from them. There are websites, independent ones, non-english sites, that provide alternate opinions on the game,. It also provides an essential picture of how different professionals share the same automated response, especially when the same large corporate hand is holding their balls – pardon me.

    It’s the great title of 2008, it’s the title everyone was looking forward to purchase. So how is it possible to conceive that such biased reviews – like the ones we often find, just find under any rock you’ve kicked along the way and you’ll find one for sure – aren’t in effect a small part of a large scaled, organized and predetermined campaign of advertisement and beatification of a single game and its supposedly brilliant creators?! Just for the sake of selling copies and raising the spirits, that’s how it works today, I don’t doubt that for a minute. I still remember the time when magazines used to present heterogeneous opinions, even concerning the great releases. It’s not about the quality of the games anymore; it’s about how much their creators are willing to offer you for a positive regard or publicity of their product. GTA IV is a good or grate game, of course, so it’s only a small step up to marvelous and revolutionary: the top score, the maximum mark. The ten, the five stars, the 100 points, what have you.
    More than ever, go play the games and decide for yourself. Leave the forums and hype machines, search for raw information and connect the dots the way you think fit. Don’t let someone else do it for you under the pretext that it is the trend or the common practice. Or, worse of all, that they know videogames better than you. Defy everything, question everything. Screw GTA, go play Tetris. Don’t read Gamespot, read Marx. Don’t tune your antenna; open your house’s windows. Don’t even pay attention to what I say, go outside to have fun with your friends. Now I’m not making sense at all, am I?

    • ruicraveirinha
    • July 4th, 2008

    Actually, you are.
    As I’ve talked to you before, the thing that really turned on my radar concerning this game’s reviews was the absolute unanimity: 10/10 in all websites, magazines and even blogs or community based reviews. No 9’s or 8’s, just 9.5 up… That sounds really weird to me for a lot of reasons, even MGS4 had two or three not so rave reviews (Eurogamer and Edge at least), Assassin’s creed had a lot of mixed reviews, heck, even Call Of Duty 4 didn’t achieve the perfect score in all magazines, and it’s the perfect example of a game that can achieve that status. Not even Game of the Year winners like Bioshock or Mario Galaxy (who also were unanimously acclaimed) don’t have such a high average score. GTA III is probably the only title of the series that could ever achieve the “revolutionary status” (whatever that means), and nobody mentioned at the time. Why on Earth ‘IV’ gets it, leaves me clueless… Good game on many levels… but revolution? Haven’t heard of any ever since Rez or Ico, but I’m probably wrong, and everyone else is right. So yeah, I’m angry… sort of 😀

    • Gin
    • August 25th, 2008

    GTA III was called revolutionary at least twice. Go check the metacritic for reviews. It’s at 97% while GTA IV’s at 98%.

    • ruicraveirinha
    • August 26th, 2008

    Probably so, but it was not a consensual acclaim, as, for example, IV and Mario got. And if you look carefully, the more important media outlets (basically, the ones that already existed in 2001, and are alive today), all gave a better score to GTA IV than they did to III (at least, EGM, IGN and Gamespot, Eurogamer being the exception that gave perfect scores to both games). But even if that weren’t true, just the fact they have such similar overall ranking is, in my opinion, startling. Just think about it: on one side, a game that almost created a genre, more even, a revolutionary game design philosophy; and on the other, you have a sequel that doesn’t introduce one single revolutionary concept! And they share similar grades? If that isn’t alarming, I don’t know what is… But hey, nobody reads those sites and magazines anyway… do they?

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: