5 Reasons GTA IV Is The Worst Great Game Ever Made
Every Saturday, Cracked asks one of our favorite writers to fill in for us. Our readers get to learn about an awesome site, and we get to take a day off to pursue our career goal of finding a big bag of money. This week Cracked contributor Robert Brockway brings you a column from his honestly titled site I Fight Robots.
_______________________________
Like almost every other being on this planet with functional eyes and opposable thumbs, I've spent the last month playing Grand Theft Auto IV and neglecting my loved ones.
It is shit.
It's repetitive, poorly implemented, riddled with design flaws, awkward, and above all, glitchy. Yet I understand every word of gushing praise. Everything the reviewers say about the city and its scale is absolutely true.
It's the little things that do it to you: Like how the fast food workers at the various restaurants actually have different duties. They come out from behind the counter and clean the tables. They sweep the sidewalks out front and wash the windows. Cars actually break down--even when they're not yours. I've driven by several random civilians causing massive traffic jams, standing in front of their overheated vehicles completely befuddled. This city is the closest gaming has ever come to a real place, a real New York. The flyers, the newspaper stands, and the grime--all of these aspects pile up to make a truly living, breathing environment.
It is indeed one of the single most impressive achievements in gaming ... so it's just too bad that Rockstar layered an irreparably flawed game on top of it.
It shouldn't surprise anyone. The actual gameplay in Grand Theft Auto IV is nearly identical to every GTA before it, and gameplay has never been their strong suit. They've added and tweaked, to be sure, but it's almost universally for the worse. Or maybe the flaws just stand out more this time because of how great it could have been. In any case, here are the five most infuriating:

The new implemented cover mechanic is ridiculously clumsy. You hit the button once to cover, and then as you try to move along whatever cover you've taken, the system often randomly interprets that movement to mean you want to switch cover entirely. So rather than sneaking along a wall to ambush an unsuspecting enemy, it's equally likely that you'll break cover, run two feet to a fire hydrant and crouch behind it while bullets rain into you--leaving you to die squatting in the middle of the road like a diarrhea stricken hobo.
I understand why they wanted to develop a cover system for the game--the idea of being pinned down behind a Dumpster in Brooklyn, desperately fending off the S.W.A.T team from a covered position is the stuff fanboy dreams are made of. But it rarely works out that way. If everything works like it's supposed to, the AI is simply no match for you if you're using cover at all. You can murder an entire city block in seconds by simply holding the cover button and selecting the next target. However, if you attempt to adjust your position in the slightest, you're leaving it entirely up to Niko's better judgment whether he moves further down the alleyway like you intended, or jogs across the street to hide behind a hot dog vendor's legs like a lost child at the county fair.

Hitting the jump button will now allow you to execute a number of new actions such as climbing, mounting or just hopping over obstacles. This revamped system allows you to seamlessly hurdle through this vastly detailed terrain without breaking stride ... in theory. In practice, however, assigning all environmental interaction to one button, a button that already has a vital function--jumping--is an exercise in stupidity. No, it's more than an exercise. It's a grand athletic competition in stupidity. It's the motherfucking Olympics of stupidity. Maneuvering through this city is complicated now by the very details that make it great. Because the path is no longer flat, some sense of agility on the part of your character is absolutely, fundamentally necessary. Ideally, small obstacles would be handled automatically--your character should step up foot-high ledges, hop over fire hydrants and make tiny-distance jumps on his own. But he typically doesn't, and you find yourself having to force him to do these things quite often, but not always. This uncertainty leaves you to continuously wonder: Is he going to just step over this curb, or am I going to get caught jogging in place alongside it? If I hit the button now, does that mean hop over that guardrail, or leap in front of that speeding bus? Does pressing jump actually mean jump, or does it mean vault over the safety railing and fall to certain death?
This is a hell of a snap decision to make at a tense point in the game. At no point should pressing one button mean either:
A.) Use the sidewalk
or
B.) Kill yourself
Maybe Niko is supposed to be dangerously bi-polar and this is just Rockstar's way of simulating his mental instability. Either way, it doesn't help me to not throw the controller at my neighbor's kids.

Repetition absolutely kills the single-player campaign. The missions and goals are little more than ultra-gritty deliveries--sometimes it's coke, sometimes it's a car, sometimes it's death--but it's always drive from point A to point B, kill or drop off something, escape cops. I know this is the premise of GTA, that you're a mercenary driver, but if you can't think of any variety to add to these missions outside of "use a different car this time," then you probably don't need 30 goddamn hours of them.
Also, why for the love of Christ are there no checkpoints in the longer, multi-stage missions? If a mission requires me to drive across town to steal a Ferrari, kill 45 cops in a parking garage, blow up a helicopter with a hand-grenade, deliver a boat full of heroin, and then dress up like a clown to perform at a children's birthday party, I shouldn't have to do every step of that again if my fucking seltzer bottle clogs up and the kids get bored. That's just shoddy design, and there's no justifying that.

The collision detection is sketchy at best. A poorly-aligned car too close to your leg could just knock you down ... or it could send you into an awkward, flailing convulsion that effectively incapacitates you until the driver decides that you've had enough of doing the Batusi and mercifully moves on. This may not be completely ruinous in the single-player campaign, but it's particularly noticeable in the multi-player. Easily half of all the multi-player games I've been in have been won or lost on a collision detection glitch. I've been gunned down in Deathmatch because my foot was too close to a moped, which causes me to inexplicably levitate in the air while the other players take festive potshots at me like I'm a blood pinata. I've lost games of Cops 'N Crooks when--after a flurry of amazing stunt jumps, eerily accurate sniper-fire and well-placed rockets, I hit the enter vehicle button at the getaway boat and my guy can't figure out how to walk around the seat. I stand there twitching in place, unable to move, while cops stroll casually up and slap me to death.
To be fair, you could just assume I suck at this game, but even when I win, half of the time it happens by glitch. After a long chase, I'll frequently see my enemies hitting the jump button to step up a curb, and instead go flailing off of a bridge. Or else they'll get stuck in buildings, or have cars materialize into existence directly in front of them, or most perplexingly, they'll suddenly lay down and zip around the street--their bodies rigid and motionless as they luge about the intersection while I fire rockets at their ricocheting, paralytic corpses like a twisted, hellish game of air hockey. It's frustrating to lose to these things, sure, but even the victories are hollow when you know the only reason you won is because your arch-nemesis' knee accidentally touched somebody's fender and he couldn't stop disco-dancing.

It's times like this when I really wish that media ownership wasn't quite so proprietary. Rockstar made a city worthy of a great game. They just forgot to do the great game part. If they could lease out their digital environments like other companies lease out their gaming engines, astounding things could be done with it. A million different games could be set within the borders of this city--stealth games, racing games, fighting games or hell, even sim games. I assume the bulk of the hundred million dollars Rockstar spent developing GTA IV went to the insane detail in this environment. Why not let another company buy some rights to it, and spend substantially less to develop working game mechanics? A lesser company could come along and just detail the insides of the buildings a little more, for example, and that would do wonders in effectively expanding your environment. They could spend a tenth of your costs and add a little something more to your city. With a little cooperation they could build modest profits, and your wonderful game environment could truly thrive. Why wouldn't you do that, Rockstar?
Oh, right. You actually want to make money. Well, fuck my beautiful dream, then.
I don't mean to imply that the flaws outweigh the perks--they don't. I won't stop playing it over these issues and I'm not suggesting you do either, both because the city and what it could have been are too tempting, and because the few times where everything does go right, it is nothing short of amazing. If nothing else Grand Theft Auto IV exemplifies why the scoring system of game reviews is so fucked at its very core. If I had to score it, I would've said it gets a 10 because this game makes you remember everything you dreamed video games could be as a kid. But does a perfect score mean a perfect game? Not in this case. But reducing everything to a number is such a black and white summation that there's simply no way to accurately tell everybody that this is the most jaw dropping game you've ever played, and at the same time you fucking hate it so much it's like a knife in your eye.
Read more from Robert at I Fight Robots.








This game made me want to blow my brains out. If I wanted to wander a dirty street with no money or people I could count on I'd go outside.
Replyyou know, its kind of like how, in the factories in China that make electronics like playstations, the workers are forced to use n-Hexane to clean the screens, because it is slightly cheaper than alcohol. of course, n-hexane is a neurotoxin. i mean, why can't the game designers simply put out a little bit more money, and switch back to alcohol? i dont really like my character getting the hand shakes just because some anonymous game designer decided to play annoying-level-god again. come on rock star!
ReplyAll the GTAs are fun as shit. Nobody can deny that. GTA 3 was a f*****g classic. GTA4 was a let down, but it was still fun. My biggest b***h was that they took away car customizations!!!!!!!!!!! What the fuck!!!!
ReplyAs far as story and actual game mechanics go, I still think that San Andreas is the best game in the series. The targeting and moving/driving controls were the smoothest and I loved having the ability to level up your characters strength and stamina and such. We shall see what GTA V brings to the table when it arrives.
ReplyIt sounds likeyou just suck at it...
ReplyKind of like how you suck at facing criticism, like an adult.
There's also the fact that a wrongly placed step in the direction of a street light will make the bulb explode, crush the stem, and disable all structural support that might have been there, causing the whole thing to topple down, sink halfway through the road, and continue to lie across the street as if it's been mega-soldered to it.
ReplyI really loved GTA IV. I did in fact experience some of these "nuances" in the game, but I didn't find them obstructing or detracting from the fun of the game at all. In fact, I thought that every one of those little details adds to the life-like feel of the game, and as a result makes it more immersible and fun. No, you are neither Spider-Man, able to zip and parkour around the city in an eye blink, nor are you a pro F1 driver capable of driving at 300 mph without crashing and burning, nor are you a special forces operative capable of dodging bullets and never missing a shot. That's not the point of the game. The mechanics SHOULDN'T be perfect, nor your character easy to control, because he is none of those things.
ReplyIndeed, what Rockstar set out to do was make you into an (almost) average dude in a big city, that looks and feels like the real thing. That's why I loved this game.
Blast from the m***********g past.
ReplyI just ready why GTA IV was such a great game on Cracked, and now I'm reading 5 reasons why it sucked.
ReplyBy the same author too!
The problem is, that GTA san andreas had some crazy missions, like jumping from a plane to another, stealing a moving truck, even stealing a jetpack from a military base. In GTA IV, 99% of the missions are go somewhere and kill people
ReplyOr worse, drive away from people trying to kill you.
Agreed! GTA: San Andreas succeeded GTA IV in almost every aspect from missions to the storyline to the environment. GTA IV is so f*****g boring in comparison. No jets to let you zoom around the city, no jetpack to help you get into those tight high up spots, no mountain you can ride a BMX bike off :P
GTA IV wins in graphics and the gameplay, but the rest is a snoozefest. GTA V is meant to be set in San Andreas again, so hopefully it'll port over the graphics and gameplay of IV and merge it with the epic awesomeness of GTA: SA XD
I've never had any of the issues mentioned here happened to me, and I played that game like a maniac for three months
ReplyI played your mom like a maniac for three months.
The number one complaint is actually a very interesting idea. Perhaps take it further if all these games had to be played simultaneously. Some guy trying to make it as a cop, another guy and his ice-cream truck business, people just trying to go about their sim-lives, street racers, etc. Sounds like troll heaven.
ReplyAfter the 5th read, this article made me finally want to get the game.
ReplyI disagree with your article. I really liked the game and finish it twice. One the cover system and jumping isn't that bad. I never had a death due to jumping. Your complaint about the mission structure is odd, because that is open world games where go to get mission/quest and go to point b to do such mission or quest. Thats kinda life, other games cut most of traveling from point a to point b. If you disagree, than i better see that same complaint for skyrim. Collision detection is going to be off in multiplayer where there is lag. For the comments the driving is more realistic so yeah your car is going to slide when going like 80 mph and trying to pull a hand brake for a sharp turn because it happens in real life.
Replya whole article on the flaws of gta iv and not one mention of the humongous turd of a driving system they implemented?
ReplySaints Row 2 >>>>>>>> GTA IV
ReplySaints Row: The Third > GTAIV
I'm with you Plasma-Mongoose. Saints Row 2 was a m***********g good game. I mean, at some point you replace that m***********g tattoo ink with mother-of-godfucking nuclear waste. Then it's applied on some f*****g face! I f**k you not!
Saints Row The Third was just a marketing stunt filled with an eight hours campaign that, while interesting, was a fuckfest. The DLC giving you the cheatcodes removed the fun; sometimes you were asked to make a choice with different rewards. The DLC gave you every reward from the start.
I agree and disagree about the checkpoint thing.
Reply Hide All See All 4 RepliesOn one hand, I think it was John Cheese or David Wong who said that gratuitous checkpoints are the problem with the video game industry today: there's very little incentive for staying alive when you know that dying will only cost you about 30 seconds of your time, and therefore you become less inventive with your playstyle.
However, on the other hand, I played through GTA 4 all the way to the final mission, and actually gave up there because I was in a delivery truck chase, and failed it near the end, so they sent me ALLLLL the way back to the beginning to pick up the Jamaican (why can't I remember his name? :( ), drive him 10 minutes across town, have a 15 minute warehouse battle, and then do this incredibly slow delivery truck chase again.
So, in other words, few checkpoints are okay, IMO, and even encouraged, so long as they still limit the player to the challenging parts.
Fortunately, The Lost and Damned and Ballad of Gay Tony had them. Unfortunately, they didn't go back and add checkpoints for the original.
Even earned checkpoints might be good like let's say, your third time making it that far in the mission means you've earned the right to start there next time.
You forgot about Little Jacob, rasta?
... That isn't the final mission.
The only point I agree with is the one about checkpoints. I've always hated that about GTA. Everything else, though, I love.
ReplyAnd don't get me started on the f*****g camera angle that seems to be obsessed with my license plate while driving.
ReplyThe driving in GTA IV sucks ass, it's like the hard-to-control driving that made True Crime: NYC suck ass (for the most part). Plus, Liberty City was always boring as s**t, GTA 5 should be better, as long as you don't go swerving 30 feet when you try to hand-brake around a corner while chasing some a*****e who happens to be the best f*****g driver in the world. Great game nonetheless.
Reply