Liberty City at Night - General

Recent attempt at a GTAIV video, sort of in remembrance to how awesome Liberty City is, especially at night. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAlePeuYSgM[/media] Criticism is appreciated.

I liked it. It's a shame the city doesn't feel more lively at night.

Liberty City is awesome.

[QUOTE=xamllew;26498432]I liked it. It's a shame the city doesn't feel more lively at night.[/QUOTE] Agreed. While there are events like comedy shows and cabaret shows, etc, it still somehow feels like a static city with nobody really living in it. All the houses feel empty, all the buildings feel unpopulated, and the only thing pedestrians are good for seems to be for running them over or fucking with Euphoria. I greatly await GTAV to see how Rockstar has addressed this.

I thought Liberty City was really bland, all the places looked the same. IMO, San Andreas was much better map wise. In SA you could look around you and instantly know "Oh, this is San Fierro" or "Oh this is Blueberry" but in GTAIV I had to constantly check my map to know where I was.

San Andreas had a great variety in landscapes, whereas GTAIV not so much. Doesn't mean that Liberty City is bad (quite the opposite) but I think if they took San Andreas, gave it LC polish and more (by making the streets more populated, more buildings you can enter, more activities, a general active social feeling to the city,) it would be perfection. Then when you are sick of all that social crap, you could explore the forests or travel on the highway. If only San Andreas didn't run like ass on my Q9450 and 5870. RS still has a thing or two to learn about optimization.

I liked it, I also enjoyed the music selection. However as everyone else mentioned (not to your fault at all) the video also illustrates how quiet Liberty City is compared to real New York City.

I hope Next GTA will be more awesome you can drive normally and fucking peds won't try to run you over at a read stop light

[QUOTE=SA Spyder;26498519]San Andreas had a great variety in landscapes, whereas GTAIV not so much. Doesn't mean that Liberty City is bad (quite the opposite) but I think if they took San Andreas, gave it LC polish and more (by making the streets more populated, more buildings you can enter, more activities,[/QUOTE] what kind of activities did GTA4 have that SA didn't?

[QUOTE=BurnBlackJay;26498704]what kind of activities did GTA4 have that SA didn't?[/QUOTE] [b]HEY NIKO WANT TO GO BOWLING COUSIN!!![/b] That

GTA IV is simply terrible in every respect when compared to SA, or even vice city. I wouldn't even say its graphics are better since it barely runs on my xbox 360 and wouldn't run on a lot of gaming rigs for PC at release.

[QUOTE=Pastapooper;26498752]GTA IV is simply terrible in every respect when compared to SA, or even vice city. I wouldn't even say its graphics are better since it barely runs on my xbox 360 and wouldn't run on a lot of gaming rigs for PC at release.[/QUOTE] I disagree. SA's story was quite uninteresting compared to GTAIV's story. I'm also a fan of the added realism. Going back to play SA and VC, I simply hate how the cars handle and how blocky everything feels next to GTAIV's proper car handling and smooth animations. SA also tried being an over-the-top RPG game with the leveling system bullshit. And to say that GTAIV's graphics aren't better than San Andreas is just ignorant. Basically the only thing better about SA is MAYBE the map, and that's it. It's bigger and more varied, but it's also emptier and less alive than LC.

[QUOTE=SA Spyder;26498858]I disagree. SA's story was quite uninteresting compared to GTAIV's story. I'm also a fan of the added realism. Going back to play SA and VC, I simply hate how the cars handle and how blocky everything feels next to GTAIV's proper car handling and smooth animations. SA also tried being an over-the-top RPG game with the leveling system bullshit. And to say that GTAIV's graphics aren't better than San Andreas is just ignorant. Basically the only thing better about SA is MAYBE the map, and that's it. It's bigger and more varied, but it's also emptier and less alive than LC.[/QUOTE] Realistic car handling? Seriously? Have you ever driven a car? I assure you they do not handle anything like that. Smooth? I don't call having terrible FPS slowdowns when things start heating up smooth, it's jittery and horrible. I didn't mean they were literally better, of course, my point is I'd rather have SA's cartoony feel than GTAIV's horrible, low fps "gritty" half-done graphics. I quite enjoyed the SA's RPG elements though I agree it might be a turn-off for the casuals.

[QUOTE=Pastapooper;26498894]Realistic car handling? Seriously? Have you ever driven a car? I assure you they do not handle anything like that. Smooth? I don't call having terrible FPS slowdowns when things start heating up smooth, it's jittery and horrible. I didn't mean they were literally better, of course, my point is I'd rather have SA's cartoony feel than GTAIV's horrible, low fps "gritty" half-done graphics. I quite enjoyed the SA's RPG elements though I agree it might be a turn-off for the casuals.[/QUOTE] It's pretty close minus the drift mechanics and how soft the suspension is. And for certain, it's worlds better than SA's car handling that seems to defy laws of physics around corners. You misunderstood when I said 'smooth.' I meant how animations flow from one to the other, whereas in VC and San Andreas, they're choppy and blocky. I'm not talking FPS because my computer can actually run GTAIV pretty well. Don't know about the 360.

[QUOTE=Pastapooper;26498894]Realistic car handling? Seriously? Have you ever driven a car? I assure you they do not handle anything like that. Smooth? I don't call having terrible FPS slowdowns when things start heating up smooth, it's jittery and horrible. I didn't mean they were literally better, of course, my point is I'd rather have SA's cartoony feel than GTAIV's horrible, low fps "gritty" half-done graphics. I quite enjoyed the SA's RPG elements though I agree it might be a turn-off for the casuals.[/QUOTE] Of course it's not like a real car, it's not Gran Turismo you know. I liked both aspects, but when they changed the cartoony atmosphere of SA to the more realistic and dark atmosphere of 4, the driving mechanics changed too. Although at first I had trouble with them, it only took a few missions for me to get the hang of them. And yeah I agree the FPS issue was a problem, but the graphics were so much improved it didn't bother me too much.

Liberty City at night with friends has to be one of my favorite moments in gaming. Going over the main part of the city in a helicopter, looking down at all those lights, all of us going "OOOOOH THAT LOOKS SO AWESOME!" in vent. It was a moment to remember.

"Too bad that still isn't art, [b]HAHAHAHAHAHA![/B]" [IMG]http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2010/03/01/alg_critic_roger-ebert.jpg[/IMG] [/sarcasm] Just kidding, good job. Kinda felt like a luxury car commercial.

GTA 4's story & graphics & activities + San Andreas' everything else = perfection.

[QUOTE=SA Spyder;26498519]San Andreas had a great variety in landscapes, whereas GTAIV not so much. Doesn't mean that Liberty City is bad (quite the opposite) but I think if they took San Andreas, gave it LC polish and more (by making the streets more populated, more buildings you can enter, more activities, a general active social feeling to the city,) it would be perfection. Then when you are sick of all that social crap, you could explore the forests or travel on the highway. If only San Andreas didn't run like ass on my Q9450 and 5870. RS still has a thing or two to learn about optimization.[/QUOTE] they should update san andreas with a new physics and graphics engine just sayin