How did realism add to GTA"s game experience? We ended up with less content, less options, less variety, less customization, less open ended mission structure in the name of "realism". What's hilarious is that this "realism" is entirely inconsistent. It's okay for Niko to ride a Faggio but not a BMX. It's okay for Niko to get inside an attack helicopter or use an rpg, but not use a flamethrower, chainsaw, and other varied weapons. It's realistic for Niko to fall 200 feet in the air, be able to avoid cops simply by driving a lil faster than them, even while in the air via helicopter, but it's totally out of Niko's character to have a more varied ward drobe, do Crazy Taxi-esque missions, or use an RC car to blow someone up.
My problem isn't the realism per se, but the misuse and inconsistent use of it.
Originally Posted by Comeback209
Heres to all the people who think all the little half-ass'd features in SR2 are going to be full blown games inside of it!
SR has more varied and fleshed out side content than any GTA. I suggest you give it a try. The two games compliment each other.
Originally Posted by Goon for Hire
Not to mention shooting people IS ACTUALLY FUN.
The gameplay in GTA IV completely stomps the shit out of the previous GTA games, they've refined everything instead of just chucking in the same features(vigilante, paramedic, taxi misssions, driving school, gym, triathalon) as the previous ones. All of these things where boring and very sloppily made. The only thing I can think of that I really miss is the parachute, but that's no big deal. The next GTA games will add more features, more things to do, but they will polish them this time, like they did with the shooting, driving, story, characters, physics and graphics.
Because shooting wasn't in past GTA games and because stripping features is preferable to evolving them, something every other game series does. If any other game series stripped the amount of content that GTAIV did, they'd get so much shit. But for some reason it's fine when it's GTA.