I've bought GTA3, Vice City and GTA4... never finished any of them. They're too fucking long, and they get boring miles before the end is even near (drive here, get cutscene, drive there, do mission, struggle with the controls, rinse and repeat).
Im 35 hours into GTA4 and I just crossed the 50% mark. Why would I buy more story missions if Im not done with GTA4 yet?
@Alex_Mexico: I'm with you. I finished GTA3 and Vice City, and played a few hours of San Andreas and thought, "I've done all this before". GTA4 was the same feeling, with crappier driving camera and more obnoxious people harassing you.
I might get around to it, but every time I put it in, I just get a real nauseous feeling, like I know if I commit, a week of my life will have been sucked away.
"Tell me, and this is for posterity, so be honest, how do you feel? "
Sales figures have not been publicly announced for the Xbox-only disc, though Wedbush Morgan Securities analysts Michael Pachter recently pegged the sales for the disc in its first month on the market at around 100,000 units in the U.S., a far cry from the millions of copies sold of GTA IV.
That's because I, and I'm sure many others, downloaded The Lost and Damned on the first day even though I always prefer physical copies of games, then to have it released later on in Episode from Liberty City? I'm not gonna pay another $20 for something I already have.
1. Don't make them console exclusive, you big turkey!
2. Even if there is enough content to justify it, $20 per DLC is off putting to Joe Consumer!
3. After playing TLatD it's become apparent how poorly GTA4's gameplay has aged! Thanks for mission checkpoints and easy retries, but seriously, dying and retrying over again is tedious!
"Episodes From Liberty City seems to have been most appealing to those who have finished GTA IV and wanted more story and gameplay,
Yeah, that was me. Granted, it took me a long time to finish Niko's story. But once I did, I was left wanting more. It's a damn shame really. I loved both expansions.
the beauty/genius of GTA IV was in its fully explorable and seemingly endlessly expansive and detailed environment. not the actual missions. episodic content is not necessary. GTA V (tokyo!) is.
chances are if they didnt make it exclusive the number may have been a bit higher... exclusive games are one thing, but exclusive DLC is stupid. they have no one to blame but themselves.
@fozfan33: Not exactly, the 360 has way more people using Xbox Live than the Playstation Network, not to mention the bigger sales on the 360 as well. The trouble was that the game relied too much on the franchise alone. Vice City and San Andreas could be seen as stand alone expansions to the game. That's what The Lost and Damned and Ballad of Gay Tony are. The difference? Vice City and San Andreas were treated almost like true sequels unto themselves. Did they give the DLC pack good content? Sure. Was it as big and as focused as Vice City or San Andreas though? No way. I'm sure the content would've been recieved much higher if people were more aware. Yet the only ads I saw were in game sites and magazines. Nothing on TV whatsoever from my point of view. However, I did see Assassin's Creed II on TV everytime I turned it on.
@darkboy1200: so your saying no one would have bought it if it was available on PSN as well? did you read my comment or are you just coming on here to spout off stupid stuff about playstation vs. xbox?
i dont care if the 360 has 1 billion potential customers and the psn has like 10... 1 billion + 10 1 billion.
if you add the number from both it is always going to be more than just one or the other, please dont be stupid.
I didn't bother buying them because after playing Saints Row 1 and 2 (Both of which I first played after GTA4), GTA 4 just seemed so utterly unfun and I no longer had the slightest bit of desire to bother with more of the ultra-boring, serious Liberty City.
@FlashbackX01, @b-radicate, @thegriefer: Exactly. I LOVED 3, Vice City, and San Andreas, but 4 just was too serious and got rid of so much that made the previous ones so much fun, a mistake Saints Row chose not to rip off of the GTA series.
Supposedly, Gay Tony added back in some of the wacky, ridiculous elements of previous GTAs, but after many hours as boring-ass Niko with sluggish control and terrible car physics (Yes, they're more realistic, but I don't play GTA for realistic car physics. I could play Gran Turismo if I wanted that crap. Or drive my real car, which has even better realistic physics and shakes a lot!), it was much too little, much too late. Once you've played Saints Row 2, it's nearly impossible to go back to the GTA4 gameplay.
I remember before GTA IV came out, a lot of PS3 owners were saying something along the lines of: "Meh, I could be bummed that I won't be getting DLC, but really, with a game that's supposed to have 100 hours of gameplay, who would want to keep playing after the main game is over?"
it might not help that the core game itself was way overrated and not enjoyed by many actual gamers which leaves the pool of players actually loving the game and also wanting to get more out of it once they're done a bit thin.
@BattleCrab: haha yeah if I went into details I guess alot would come out as being a nice move forward in video games in general, many things are awesome about it.
I always felt however it was more of a tech demo than a game, I played GTA3 for countless hours and in many forms but I never could pick GTA4 for more than half an hour at a time or just to ride around town
even though it deserves 10's for it's art direction, a 10 for the voice acting, I just opiniating here, I didn't find the 'fun tu play' factor I had previously and did not enjoy de radio hosts as I did in the past (vice city stories anyone?) and found the relationship management to be a bit tedious.
then again, those are my opinions alone but I stand by my idea as to why it didn't sell that much DLC. What doesn't help is that many finished it long ago while games like (god forbid) WoW and classics like TF2 are continiouslu populated and are sustained by a continious flow of players keeping the urge to play alive.
Oh well, y'all have a nice evening, happy holidays, im off to an office party, woot!
I bet MS are the more pissed. They paid good money for that DLC and apparently didn't see the returns they wanted.
And Rockstars knows that next time they maybe shouldn't go exclusive with add-on content?
Though I will say they left it a bit too long. Wasn't it nearly a year till they got the first episode out?
I know GTAIV came out when I got my PS3 (cos my Ps3 was bundled with it:P) And that was ..May 08?
I know Stephen is asking below when too soon and when to late is and well 8-12 months is too late definitely, unless its just there to up sales a bit, and 2months or less is far too soon for most.
Fallout I think has had one of the best timed upto now, about equivalent to Episodes but within a year of release evens spaced out. (unless you got it on PS3)
I bought Lost/Damned day one and it was alright. Niko's story was much better and I was disappointed by the fact that the new guns didn't appear in his game.
I actually bought a 2000-point card just to buy Ballad, but for some reason, I haven't made the purchase. I guess timing was really a factor. by 10/29 I was already waist deep in Forza 3 and sitting on the edge of my seat for MW2 and AC2...
But I haven't spent those points and I DO plan on buying it.
I'll be honest: I didn't like GTA IV, though I only played it for like ten minutes. Does the game always take itself too seriously? Is it possible to get used to the controls to the point where everything feels smooth? It's super super cheap now, and I'm wondering if maybe I'd like it if I gave it a better shot. Does the DLC improve the experience/change the tone at all (not that it matters, I have a PS3)?
Makes sense. Personally, I'm getting tired of open-world, sandbox games. After awhile, a game's charm gets lost when you have to travel from point A and drive/fly/swim/drive (yes, twice!) to point B which is 5 minutes away, just to do some mission that involves doing something in an otherwise boring, or ordinary looking area, just to have to lug your way back to point A!
I am, quite frankly, sick of it already and I want linear gameplay back. Or, at the very least, contain areas outside of areas that have special significance (think Zelda, or Jak & Daxter(1)). I miss being important in my games.
@jellotek: Ironically enough, to me the only exception to this was Fallout 3. I guess it's because you have this huge world but you have an actual story arch to follow and actual characters that stick with you and can actually die. Though, I could have done without the MILES AND MILES of sewer/subway travel.
@icarus212001: I'm totally on board with this. I guess I'm not ready to abandon sandbox games for good, but when I think about games that are mediocre in my mind (GTA4, Crackdown (yeah shoot me), Dead Rising (shoot me twice), Far Cry 2), they are all sandbox games.
Point A to point B is fine, but like you say, A to B for 3 seconds to pick something up, then going back to A or being sent to C because B wasn't good enough...fuck it.
I'm into video games partially because I'm lazy, and I want to get right into it and start killing shit or buying shit or upgrading shit.
Now Fallout 3 was amazing, one of my favorite games ever this gen. It was sandbox, but it also had the fast travel system. But y'know, I found myself walking between towns even when I didn't have to. Why? Because there was more shit out there to do than just what I was asked to do. Plus, RANDOM ENCOUNTERS, they were awesome in FO3. Especially the extra rare one that gets you the Firelance (I got it!). So FO3 isn't a great argument in my favor because it's essentially an RPG. GTA4, Dead Rising, Far Cry 2 and Crackdown are not. I'll admit that. But geez, guy gives me a job to do, I run and do that job, shoot people, run back. That's all GTA4 is for like 14 hours. BOO-riiing.
@Dr Durdon: No joke. I guess I just mentioned FO3 because he mentioned Oblivion. So I guess, yeah, FO3 was a pretty bad example. But I think the point was made regardless lol
@icarus212001: There are many more linear games than sandbox games out there. It's not like they're your only choice or even like you're being forced into them.
Play Halo 3, play Uncharted 2, play a billion other third person games that keep you going.
I, on the other hand, love travel and exploration. Just as much as I like combat. In fact, travel was the only reason I played GTA San Andreas as much as I did, it was fargin' huge.
@Dr Durdon: You do know that it had a fast travel system, right? The taxis? Which were even free if you were good enough friends with Roman?
I'd agree that they might have come too late, especially the bundled disc version. The core game also got bad word of mouth, with which I would not agree- Sure, they cut out a lot of sandbox which, imho, wasn't too much fun in SA, but, similar to GTA3, they focused on the core and made it great (Realistic car handling, cover system, autosave etc). Perhaps some humour got lost in the process, but the writing and story were easily the best and most relatable in the series- I actually cared for the people, deaths were significant events and when the game wasn't too serious, it had side-splitting comments. Not to mention that the DLC expanded the core quite a bit.
@SeemantiniTurdus: Yeah I do remember that, now that you mention it. I rarely used it, instead just spawned a helicopter and crash landed where I needed to go :)
@Koztah: I think my dislike towards the "genre" is born from the fact that most devs that use the open-world/sandbox gameplay type use it solely so they can say "It's like GTA, but!...". I would be more open to it if there was a legitimate and honest reason for using it, other than using to sucker in people waiting for another GTA.
@Koztah: I love travel and exploration as well, but only when they actually mean something to the gameplay.
The problem, IMO, with so much of the modern era of "sandbox gameplay" is that it's exploration with no purpose. You're not traveling around to find a side mission, or an elusive power-up, or anything of substance, you're just driving around the city for the sake of driving around the city. It seems like the point is simply that you CAN go anywhere, not that there's any purpose of doing so or anywhere interesting to go.
In the past, a lot of guys I knew never touched the main story missions in the GTA games. They were more than satisfied to just go around sniping civilians and raising their police levels ad infinitum (which probably explains the folly of narrative-driven DLC for a series like this). But for me, the novelty wore off quick, and all that was left was a largely empty, unfocused game anchored by play mechanics that felt ripped out of a first-gen Saturn game.
12/19/09
Im 35 hours into GTA4 and I just crossed the 50% mark. Why would I buy more story missions if Im not done with GTA4 yet?
12/19/09
I might get around to it, but every time I put it in, I just get a real nauseous feeling, like I know if I commit, a week of my life will have been sucked away.
"Tell me, and this is for posterity, so be honest, how do you feel? "
12/18/09
That's because I, and I'm sure many others, downloaded The Lost and Damned on the first day even though I always prefer physical copies of games, then to have it released later on in Episode from Liberty City? I'm not gonna pay another $20 for something I already have.
12/18/09
2. Even if there is enough content to justify it, $20 per DLC is off putting to Joe Consumer!
3. After playing TLatD it's become apparent how poorly GTA4's gameplay has aged! Thanks for mission checkpoints and easy retries, but seriously, dying and retrying over again is tedious!
12/18/09
Yeah, that was me. Granted, it took me a long time to finish Niko's story. But once I did, I was left wanting more. It's a damn shame really. I loved both expansions.
12/18/09
12/18/09
12/18/09
12/18/09
i dont care if the 360 has 1 billion potential customers and the psn has like 10... 1 billion + 10 1 billion.
if you add the number from both it is always going to be more than just one or the other, please dont be stupid.
12/18/09
I remember getting to a point where I just wanted something else to do, but still wanting to play the game.
12/18/09
12/18/09
12/18/09
12/18/09
12/18/09
12/18/09
Supposedly, Gay Tony added back in some of the wacky, ridiculous elements of previous GTAs, but after many hours as boring-ass Niko with sluggish control and terrible car physics (Yes, they're more realistic, but I don't play GTA for realistic car physics. I could play Gran Turismo if I wanted that crap. Or drive my real car, which has even better realistic physics and shakes a lot!), it was much too little, much too late. Once you've played Saints Row 2, it's nearly impossible to go back to the GTA4 gameplay.
12/18/09
This article seems to suggest they were right...
12/18/09
That said, GTA will still probably have sold more on the 360 so maybe it won't.
12/18/09
That's my opinion at least.
12/18/09
12/18/09
I always felt however it was more of a tech demo than a game, I played GTA3 for countless hours and in many forms but I never could pick GTA4 for more than half an hour at a time or just to ride around town
even though it deserves 10's for it's art direction, a 10 for the voice acting, I just opiniating here, I didn't find the 'fun tu play' factor I had previously and did not enjoy de radio hosts as I did in the past (vice city stories anyone?) and found the relationship management to be a bit tedious.
then again, those are my opinions alone but I stand by my idea as to why it didn't sell that much DLC. What doesn't help is that many finished it long ago while games like (god forbid) WoW and classics like TF2 are continiouslu populated and are sustained by a continious flow of players keeping the urge to play alive.
Oh well, y'all have a nice evening, happy holidays, im off to an office party, woot!
12/18/09
And Rockstars knows that next time they maybe shouldn't go exclusive with add-on content?
Though I will say they left it a bit too long. Wasn't it nearly a year till they got the first episode out?
I know GTAIV came out when I got my PS3 (cos my Ps3 was bundled with it:P) And that was ..May 08?
I know Stephen is asking below when too soon and when to late is and well 8-12 months is too late definitely, unless its just there to up sales a bit, and 2months or less is far too soon for most.
Fallout I think has had one of the best timed upto now, about equivalent to Episodes but within a year of release evens spaced out. (unless you got it on PS3)
12/18/09
I actually bought a 2000-point card just to buy Ballad, but for some reason, I haven't made the purchase. I guess timing was really a factor. by 10/29 I was already waist deep in Forza 3 and sitting on the edge of my seat for MW2 and AC2...
But I haven't spent those points and I DO plan on buying it.
12/18/09
12/18/09
I am, quite frankly, sick of it already and I want linear gameplay back. Or, at the very least, contain areas outside of areas that have special significance (think Zelda, or Jak & Daxter(1)). I miss being important in my games.
12/18/09
All reasons why I never liked GTA. Also reasons why I found Oblivion incredibly boring in a revisit after I finished it.
12/18/09
12/18/09
Point A to point B is fine, but like you say, A to B for 3 seconds to pick something up, then going back to A or being sent to C because B wasn't good enough...fuck it.
I'm into video games partially because I'm lazy, and I want to get right into it and start killing shit or buying shit or upgrading shit.
Now Fallout 3 was amazing, one of my favorite games ever this gen. It was sandbox, but it also had the fast travel system. But y'know, I found myself walking between towns even when I didn't have to. Why? Because there was more shit out there to do than just what I was asked to do. Plus, RANDOM ENCOUNTERS, they were awesome in FO3. Especially the extra rare one that gets you the Firelance (I got it!). So FO3 isn't a great argument in my favor because it's essentially an RPG. GTA4, Dead Rising, Far Cry 2 and Crackdown are not. I'll admit that. But geez, guy gives me a job to do, I run and do that job, shoot people, run back. That's all GTA4 is for like 14 hours. BOO-riiing.
12/18/09
12/18/09
Play Halo 3, play Uncharted 2, play a billion other third person games that keep you going.
I, on the other hand, love travel and exploration. Just as much as I like combat. In fact, travel was the only reason I played GTA San Andreas as much as I did, it was fargin' huge.
12/18/09
I'd agree that they might have come too late, especially the bundled disc version. The core game also got bad word of mouth, with which I would not agree- Sure, they cut out a lot of sandbox which, imho, wasn't too much fun in SA, but, similar to GTA3, they focused on the core and made it great (Realistic car handling, cover system, autosave etc). Perhaps some humour got lost in the process, but the writing and story were easily the best and most relatable in the series- I actually cared for the people, deaths were significant events and when the game wasn't too serious, it had side-splitting comments. Not to mention that the DLC expanded the core quite a bit.
12/18/09
12/18/09
12/18/09
The problem, IMO, with so much of the modern era of "sandbox gameplay" is that it's exploration with no purpose. You're not traveling around to find a side mission, or an elusive power-up, or anything of substance, you're just driving around the city for the sake of driving around the city. It seems like the point is simply that you CAN go anywhere, not that there's any purpose of doing so or anywhere interesting to go.
In the past, a lot of guys I knew never touched the main story missions in the GTA games. They were more than satisfied to just go around sniping civilians and raising their police levels ad infinitum (which probably explains the folly of narrative-driven DLC for a series like this). But for me, the novelty wore off quick, and all that was left was a largely empty, unfocused game anchored by play mechanics that felt ripped out of a first-gen Saturn game.
12/18/09
If you can't enjoy doing things for their own sake, then that's too bad.