This doesn’t mean anything. Every school kid knows to triple space, size 20 font, single sided.
Half that script is just civilian screams.
I know that the driving physics in 4 weren’t generally well received, but I actually loved them. Overall, I felt like the controls in 4 felt better than in any other GTA.
GTA 4 had the best driving physics of all GTA games. And GTA 5 is pretty much on par with GTA 2. Just because children too young to play the game complained en masse about driving being “too difficult” in GTA 4. God dammit it’s a skill part of the game, you have to drive to get better at it. And when you do it’s super rewarding with all the different car physics, a reward that is nowhere to be found in GTA 5. Sadly I’m not expecting GTA 6 to be any better.
I 100% agree. Every element of the physics engine felt like it actually had weight to it. The driving physics were predictable, especially if you have any experience with sim driving/racing titles. It wasn’t a simulation, but the cause and effect aspects were as good as we’ll probably ever get in a game like GTA. Passenger cars drove like barges, sports cars were agile and snappy. It wasn’t some canned effect, it was actually down to approximations of a tire model and suspension dynamics.
GTA V feels like every car is the same baseline slot car with tweaked effects to try and provided some level of difference between vehicles. The inertia is bad. Accidents have minor consequences compared to GTA IV. The damage model in IV is vastly superior as well.
Accidents have minor consequences compared to GTA IV.
I agree with you I much prefered the driving in 4 over any other that I can remember. However, one really weird thing was that sometimes you could hit a curb at relatively low speed and you would fly through the windshield. Other times you were totally indestructable.
Every element of the physics engine felt like it actually had weight to it.
This is a great description of what I think I liked the most about it, yeah. It’s weird though because a similar thing could probably be said about Red Read Redemption 2, and I hate that game’s controls.
Not playing GTA, did the extra work pay off?
GTA 3 has a silent protagonist and most of the dialogue takes place in mission cutscenes. It’s a very simplistic game in comparison to GTA 4.
If you’re after a grounded experience with characters that feel real, then yes it paid off.
There were also two full GTA games between GTA III and IV. Vice City and San Andreas both built on the successes of the previous games and built out the universe of characters and locations. I’d be curious to see the script lengths for those, too, but the differences might not be that dramatic.
“beek Amereecan teetees!”
I was thinking more which had the better gameplay. All else is fluff around that IMO.
Diablo II for instance had very minor story and dialogue, but is an all time classic.
Why you asking if the larger script made the gameplay better 😆
It depends what you want from a game. It’s okay to like a game primarily for story or primarily gameplay, both are valid.
GTA IV had both, but imo its gameplay is a little bit dated these days. I know people still love the gameplay loop in GTA V, but personally I’m basically done with it.
GTA 5 was great, but I wish they didn’t solely focus on online multiplayer after the game was released.
gta 5 is better than 4 up until a point imo because the last few chapters feel really rushed. they definetly did some cost cutting by the end there so they could release the game already and make money from multiplayer.
and they sadly scrapped the expansions that would probably be as great as the ones for gta4, and livened it up quite a bit.
Is there a source for this? All I can find on a google image search is a quora link that seems to say everything in the picture is from GTAIV. Where is the indication the papers on the left are from GTAIII?
