Forum:Realism and GTA IV

Everywhere I go, but especially in the gripes section on this site, I see constant back and forth exchanges that go something like this.

"GTAIV doesn't have [insert San Andreas feature here]"
 * "That's because GTAIV is all about realism"
 * "But GTAIV has [insert some unrealistic feature that GTAIV does have here]" or, alternatively "GTA was never meant to be realistic"

I think that both groups; A: Those who complain about GTA IV's excluding the more outrageous features of the earlier games, like base jumping, the dozens of insane specialty vehicles and weapons (that are mostly just unnecessary novelty items with limited function) unlimited ammo capacity, and so on... and B: Those who refute those gripes by claiming GTA IV is striving to be realistic as possible...

Well, they're both missing the point. No game is perfectly realistic, few games are even mostly realistic. The general rule of semi-realistic games (in other words, the majority of non-arcade games in a real-life setting with no major fantasy or sci-fi element) is that things are realistic unless there's a good reason they shouldn't be. A semi-realistic game should be authentic in the ways that count (cars should handle like they weigh more than a paper cup, firearms should not be so powerful that a single shot to the foot is an instant kill, and so on), but not so realistic that it extinguishes the fun.

For example, it's not realistic that Niko routinely survives in excess of a dozen 9mm bullets to the torso even without armor, but it is that way because the game would be impossible to play unless it was built from the ground up with a tactical shooter's gameplay in mind. This is an acceptable compromise in an action game.

There's also a fine line between something being unrealistic and something being totally ridiculous and unbelievable. The fact that Niko can fly through the windscreen of a car and hit a solid object at speed with a sickening crack, yet suffer no broken bones or internal injuries, is unrealistic; but nowhere near as unrealistic as having the ability to leap off of a 50 storey building and only lose 15 points of armor when you land (Yes, Tommy Vercetti, I mean you.).

So obviously, while GTA IV does strive to come across as immersive, believable and somewhat realistic, it's still an action game and it's gameplay is designed with this in mind. It's not a tactical shooter, it's not a simulation. GTA IV wasn't designed to be as realistic as possible, but to be realistic unless there's a good reason not to be. One of GTA IV's main selling points is its gritty and immersive atmosphere, and a lot of the conventions of the older games really do contradict that. Chainsaw rampages, smacking people in the face with dildos, tanks churning up city streets going after a lone criminal, and so on.

To me, GTA San Andreas felt like two different games awkwardly moulded together, because on the one hand it went down the gritty and depressing 'life-in-the-ghetto' road, but before you know it you're busting drug rings, doing black ops for a government agent, running a casino, raiding secret government facilities and stealing jetpacks, leaping between planes at high altitudes, flying across the country to do a mob hit, partaking in all manner of sports... the list goes on. San Andreas was one hell of a playground, but I think its attempt at a serious storyline suffered as a result of all the crazy fun stuff they crammed in with it. Similarily, I think GTA IV would've been worse off, all things considered, if it had kept on trying to do both extremes.

So, realism isn't the 'be all, end all' concept of GTA IV, but the game is obviously quite a bit more serious in tone and that's the reason some of the more outrageous stuff was left out, now why don't we all cut the crap and try to enjoy it for what it is, 'kay? --MattyDienhoff 13:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)