FEATURE: GTA4, Bad Game Design Strikes Again
- Scribbled on May 7th, 2008 by Jonah Falcon
- Filed in Action, Features, Microsoft Xbox 360, Sony PlayStation 3
I don’t care how many copies of Grand Theft Auto IV get sold. I don’t care how many rave reviews it gets - from magazines and websites highlighting it as a feature story (nudge, nudge, wink, wink), but Rockstar continues to prove when it comes to basic web design, they’re stuck in the Stone Age. I’d already detailed a long time ago on game design, Rockstar may have great tunes, and nice graphics, but gameplay-wise, they still don’t get it.
An excerpt:
One of my biggest pet peeves are repeatable missions, some of the sort you see in Grand Theft Auto or Saints Row, and so forth. Some of the missions go out of their way to not only be excrutiatingly difficult, and illogical (the toy helicopters in the first GTA springs to mind), but also bring the narrative to a screeching halt - for no reason whatsoever, which stretches any sort of suspension of belief to the breaking point. Honestly, if some idiot who is only tangential to the plot gets killed, would that really end the story? I mean, if Frank can’t stop some loon in a motorcycle in Dead Rising, and runs away instead, would that end the story? Early in GTA: San Andreas, so WHAT if you can’t get that guy on the motorbike, who had sex with Loc G. Maybe failing to get him makes him turn around and attack you for failing. It would be a different story, sure. But is that so bad?
Case in point in Grand Theft Auto IV: first sniper mission, I have to take out some baddies who are attacking a dealer. Forgetting for a moment that even with the scope and a tiny little red arrow icon, it’s difficult to pick out who’s on your side, for some reason, the mission keeps failing when seemingly all of the enemies are killed. But worse, worse, if the dealer gets injured, mission over. Do it again. Why? Niko isn’t dead. Let him fail. Failure is a part of life.
And Rockstar once again proves that forcing someone to do the same thing over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over is boring.
Just think how boring that was to read. This isn’t an arcade game where you’re forcing the player to pump quarters. Just get on with the storyline.
But it gets worse - a previous mission had a player take out some gang members who are hanging around a garage. Now, half the members don’t take off in a car til you attack, so I thought I’d be cute and use this tactic: I rammed a car a number of times til it was on fire and ready to explode. I drove the car in front of the car where some of the game members were sitting in the car. The car explodes, and the gang car doesn’t, even though the other cars nearby did. That, my friend, is the opposite of cheating. That’s fixing the mission and robbing creativity from the player. So much for “free-form thinking”.
Of course, you can’t save anywhere - Grand Theft Auto IV still has a lame save point feature, though it does autosave after successful missions. But, God knows, why have someone save when they do well in the first half of a mission? Nope, redo the whole mission, sucker. Someone tell Rockstar it’s 2008, not 1988. No one needs to input a pass code anymore. People who owned a computer since 1982 have enjoyed saving anywhere; I guess we’re just spoiled that way.
But hey, GTA4 sold a quadrillion copies, so obviously, that’s a real motivation to, you know, actually change the formula. Right?
[Oh, and escort missions where a mission will end if they get hurt, let alone killed, should be illegal. End of story.]
May 7th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
I couldn’t agree more. the game is very entertaining though, but it kind of sucks that you have to redo missions instead of just “moving on”
May 7th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Correction, it’s not bad game design, it’s just game design features that you don’t like. I myself am fine with them. Same for Dead Rising. I PREFER save points in that game. Do you know how hard it is to have save-anywhere in a scripted game?
May 7th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Yeah, I prefer save points too. I also prefer microtransactions.
Checkpoints > Save anywhere?
Where’s that Kool Aid?
June 13th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
With the sniper mission, I agree that there should be a clearer read to who the enemies are, it’s easy to get confused. That said, the red icons are a dead give away to who the enemies are; I beat the mission on the first try, don’t know why you had such a hard time, unless you’re color blind.
As far as repetitive gameplay goes, yah driving gets old. But that’s why they introduced taxi’s if you don’t want to waste your time. The missions have more variety than the last game as well.
But to say you’d like to save in between missions is a joke. I mean come on, you spend about 15 minutes max on a mission, it’s not 2 hours or something. Games were meant to have fail conditions; you learn from them, get better and advance.
Overall your comments don’t really point to anything about bad game design, just that if you made the game, this is what you’d do out of preference (meaning you like games to be easy and not challenging). Maybe you should go play Lego Star Wars, my 5 year old nephew beat it no problem.