Real life, or larger than life?

With September and October completely gone,, I figured I should write a new post lest I go 3 months without saying anything. It seems like everytime I sit down and say I want to do this more often I end up doing it less often - maybe I should try it the other way around for once?

Comparing GTAIV and Saint's Row is not only a difficult task, but it is also a flawed one. Saint's row came out pretty early in the 360's life (compared to GTAIV) and is really the first attempt by developer Volition to break into the sand-box genre. Which, let's face it, EVERYHTHING is immediately compared to the GTA series - they are even called "GTA clones". It's not easy going up against this kind of prestige, that kind of entrenched genre where anything you do will be seen as a cheap rip-off. It's like making an adventure game without featuring Link or a platforming game without Mario. You will always be compared to games that have taken the genre to near-perfection and you will never be taken seriously. It may be more fair to compare GTAIV and Saint's Row 2 - especially considering Saint's Row is now a proven franchise and it has had more time to develop properly on the platform. That is, of course, if Saint's Row was even worth playing in the first place. So was it? Or was it all just hype?

You'll need some background on my history with the genre before you can fully understand my review and where I'm coming from when I write it: Playing linear RPG's and strategy titles all the time with hard limits and a set pace leaves me wanting every year or so a good, free roaming game that lets me choose what I do and why I'm doing it. I was one of those people that had not even heard of Grand Theft Auto until it's explosion on the PS2. To me, GTAIII was to Sandbox games as FFVII was to RPGs for others. It was really my first glance into sandbox style gaming, and coming from a person who plays most games in a linear, driven fashion it left me both paralyzed and excited. In GTAIII I loved the ability to do whatever I wanted - if I wanted to move the story forward, I could. If I wanted to do side missions, I could. If I wanted to just cause havoc, I could. As you moved forward in the game and you opened up multiple places to get 'jobs', it gave even more of a sense of freedom, as you could work on something else if one mission proved too tough or too annoying. The freedom was absolutely intoxicating, and even as you got near the 'end' of the game it always felt like it was fun even if you weren't moving the story forward.

After that came Vice City which, in my humble opinion, is the best of the three GTAIII games. It added alot to the existing GTAIII forumla (motorcycles, for instance) but it's best feature was improving the story and the characters. GTAIII's story gets lost in it's own massiveness, and actually only plays an important role to set up why you're a convict on the run and to wrap up the end of the game. They could just as easily made the game have NO story - chop it out completely - and the game would stand up just as well. That is absolutely not the case with Vice City. Characters and plot were essential to fully enjoying the game, and it made the sandbox experience that much better. Meeting and understanding the loony and bizzare cast of characters and exploring the (very well done) 1980's style environments were a breath of fresh air after the dark, dab 'liberty city' and the monotone, uninspired, often forgettable characters from GTAIII.

San Andreas tried it's best to improve on this but fell short, especially in my eyes. It was not a bad game by any means, but the game was SO massive that it was actually hindered by it's size. It took forever to get anywhere, none of the cities and locations were particularly inspired, the addition of 'rpg-like' elements really stole away from the "go anywhere do anything" feel and some of the missions were punishingly difficult or tedious. Despite the fact that it was larger, it didn't feel like there was as much to do as there was in Vice City, and Rockstar's attempts to turn the main story into an almost cinematic plot really fell face first on its awkward characters and bizzare situations. This was Rockstar's attempt to deliver "gritty realism" and to really try and "push the envelope" with the series, but instead it loses most of it's focus on gameplay and becomes clouded in its own priorities. I never got past the second of the three cities, and for good reason. Nothing held my attention and it felt like it took forever to do anything... only to fail and then have to take forever AGAIN. San Andreas may have been a technical marvel on the PS2 but it was an exercise in frustration from a gameplay standpoint.

OK, so on to the games at hand:

I received Saint's Row on a whim (it was a gift, but I asked for it partially as a joke) but was eager to try it out because it has been a really, really long time since i'd played an open world, sandbox style game. San Andreas left me with a poor taste and I'd played Vice City long ago enough that nostalgia was starting to set in. I was afraid for Saint's Row after seeing a roomate play it - the characters were over-the-top stupid and the entire getup seemed way to ridiculous and 'gangster' to even enjoy. Instead of deep, interesting characters (like in Vice City) there were absolutely ridiculous stereotypes and just an uneccessarily large amount of cursing and street slang. Now, I try to be a good Christian and try not to curse myself, and I find myself willing to allow a reasonable amount of cursing or sleaze if it serves a purpose (and, let's face it, the fact I've even played these two games shows I have a pretty loose policy when it comes to things like this). But in Saint's Row it really serves no purpose other than to be over the top and offensive, which I found to be very annoying.

The desire to play a sandbox game eventually overcame the hesitation, and while I certainly would not call this 'the best game ever' or even remotely close I think it fits well as a niche alternative to GTAIV. This is not because of the story or the characters - both so cliche and stereotypical that it really serves no purpose other than to give your game an 'ending' point or a reason to try something new - but because of gameplay. It is obvious that they knew they couldn't compete with GTA toe-to-toe, so they instead took the 'parody' route with the plot (giving us all the over the top cliches) while doing much to innovate and really try to draw out that fun, 'do anything' sandbox feel. Not since GTAIII have I had so much fun just roaming around the streets picking up odd jobs and doing weird or unusual things for the sake of doing it. The game does an excellent job of providing tons of spur-of-the-moment entertainment and new or innovative side jobs that can really pile up and distract you from the (hideous) main story.

Fortunately, for a sandbox game, gameplay is much more important than story. I was OK with GTAIII's less than stellar plotline and easily forgettable characters. This was because it was still fun to play. I was happier when they actually added some flair to the games presentation with their release of Vice City, and I believe Rockstar learned a valuable lesson from the trip ups with San Andreas's slow, boring, tedious gameplay. Since Saint's Row takes itself far less seriously and opts to remove alot of the gritty realism and immersion, opting instead for some over-the-top thrills, the gameplay overall is much smoother and much more entertaining. New odd jobs, like insurance fraud, handily beat the more "realistic" side stuff in previous GTAs (like, "buy a business and then periodically drive by and collect cash"). Having multiple cars available to you in your garage instead of just 1 lets you collect all the nice, exotic, or just plain strange cars that you want without that annoying "only one car can be saved in your garage" limit. The fact that you can die or get busted - and when you're pulling wacky stunts or doing weird things, it happens ALOT - and still get to keep your weapons is an incredible boon. It was too annoying in the earlier GTA's to have to go around and build up your arsenal again before you did your next mission because you decided to try that crazy stunt jump or try and fly a helicopter in between.

Things like this may add 'realism' and 'consequences' but also add an invisible barrier to the game that actively discourages you from just just exploring and generally having a good time. In a sandbox game it is absolutely imperative that you interfere with the player's game as little as possible. The beauty of a sandbox game is freedom - the ability to go wherever, do whatever, whenever, and for no reason other than because you can. That is not to say that sandbox games cannot have a 'tiered' system or that you must have access to everything right away. You can still 'lock' certian areas, items and retain a sense of 'progession' and gives the player something to aim for or a separate goal to accomplish (new cars, weapons, locations or side quests). That's fine. But when you begin dictating what players can and cannot do, or adding consequences to choices (apparant or otherwise) that detract from the overall experience, it doesn't matter how revolutionary or how impressive these are, they still remain annoying nuiscances to the true gameplay. This is perhaps GTAIV's greatest flaw, but I'll get to that later.

So for all of Saint's Row's many failures (story, characters, offensiveness and lack of originality) it is more than made up for in gameplay. To be fair, the game feels like a giant leap forward from Crackdown in terms of depth of gameplay, size and variety but is severely hindered by it's "super thug" image and the both offensive and annoying story. However, as a game, Saint's Row delivers an enjoyable sandbox experience that is certianly more fun than San Andreas ever was. The developers really had something going here with the gameplay but everything else is so lacking that I probably would've been extremely agitated had I paid full price for it. This is certianly something worth digging out of a bargain bin, used or even as a platinum hit - don't rent it, though, as there's alot of milage to be had from the massive world, and if you feel rushed to complete the "story" or move forward you'll lose alot of what makes sandbox games so great.

Before we begin a direct comparison (although I'm sure you can already see what my complaints and praises to GTAIV are going to be) allow me to give a review of GTAIV on it's own.

Grand Theft Auto IV represents a great step forward for games. It proves the kind of amazing things we can do with "next gen" technology. It shows the kind of incredible storytelling, deep characters, numerous choices and limitless replay that can be placed into a game. As of it's release, it raised the bar for what the sandbox genre really means. The density and life of the city, the depth and interactions with the characters, the intrigue story that you decide, the realistic physics; these are all things that have rarely been done on their own, let alone as a group. Rockstar put a very large and commendable amount of effort in creating a vibrant city and populating it with an interesting and varied cast of characters. You can really tell the amount of work and time that went in to every street corner; hardly any part of the city feels 'duplicated' or like a simple texture remapping or pallete swap and each area is really given it's own life. What has been done on these consoles and the evolution from the GTAIII engine is not only a marvel technically, but also a milestone in terms of the size and scope that games will have in the future.

It is unfortunate, then, that they forgot you wanted to have fun while you play it.

For all the praise I can give it, GTAIV boils down to perhaps nothing more than an exercise in extreme frustration. It seems that for every new freedom or new gameplay they add, they tether you down with annoying and excessively repetitive tasks. Honestly, the only thing 'sandbox' about the game anymore is that the world is large and seamless. The missons are incredibly linear and repetitive, the gameplay becomes stale after about the fourth or fifth mission (even with the addition of the Gears of War-like 'cover' system), side quests and things to do are almost non-existant and what's there is punishingly brutal in how boring and monotonous it is. Added or new gameplay elements - 'friends', internet cafes, and the like - are not only incredibly uninspired but act as the games greatest weakness, so much so that it is oft made fun of by gamers (particulaly in webcomics). Compared to other GTA games, GTAIV stands out technically and in overall presentation but just falls completely on it's face in terms of gameplay.

It is almost painfully obvious that the game suffers due to Rockstar trying to really make the game as realistic as possible. They decided to make this great world, this amazingly detailed microcosm of American life and the typical american city (more specifically, New York) and this they do splendidly. But they take the idea too far, and gameplay suffers for the sake of "realism". Driving is now about as fun as having a root canal since controlling your car through any type of turn is next to impossible. Forget the GTA staples like handbraking through turns, adrenaline pumping police chases and dangerously weaving in and out of traffic at breakneck speeds. Instead, you must resign yourself to going about 10 miles an hour if you want to make turns without losing complete control and slamming into a wall, trying to get around traffic often ends in fishtailing (or running into something that causes you to do so) and you can just forget trying to do so into oncoming traffic.

This is because driving is now more 'realistic', which is obviously true. Yeah, if I took a 90 degree turn going 45mph or more I probably wouldn't make a clean turn. Sure, if I was weaving in and out of traffic I'd probably clip something once or twice and cause my car to fishtail. Of course people would try to get out of my way if I was coming at them in the wrong lane. However, none of these facts make it fun, and often make the gameplay frustrating or slow. Instead of 70 mile an hour car chases through downtown avoiding cars and doing my best to avoid telephone poles, I'm resigned to 10 mile an hour pleasure cruises (while my 6 star rating has helicopters shooting at me) and a nice trip through the windshield should I even look at a lightpost the wrong way. Driving in this game is almost as bad as it was in Crackdown, although even that became a little more manageble once you 'skilled up'. When you make perhaps the largest portion of the game - the Auto - an unenjoyable and aggravating experience, it does not bode well for how people are going to enjoy the experience, regardless of how 'life like' it may be.

That is, of course, assuming the rest of the game played well. Which it doesn't.

The number of things wrong just climbs up from here. 'Friends' are a great addition to the game because it really helps you develop relationships and learn more about the characters of the series, giving you the opportunity to to expand upon that portion of the game's presentation if you choose to do so. Therein, of course, lies the rub: IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO SO. I am amazed and perplexed by the fact that the makers of the defacto, genre defining 'sandbox' game could make something so disrubtive. The beauty of the sandbox genre is the freedom to do whatever you want, whenever you want, and for whatever reason. It's not an RPG, where you must grind levels to fight a boss or to get out of a specific area. It's not an action adventure game where you are limited to a single dungeon or zone while you look for a specific item. It's not a point and click adventure where you move along a set path and do events in a specific order. So why, for the love of all that is holy, did they make this feature so disruptive?

Here is how the game occurs during a typical playing session. You are just kind of going around, maybe working on a mission or doing a side quest or running from the cops or whatever. Suddenly, your phone goes off. Oh, it's your cousin. He wants to go to play some darts. But, of course, you're tied up at the moment. "Maybe later", you say. Whoops, he doesn't like that. Then your girlfriend calls. You haven't called in a while, and she wants to go to dinner. "Kinda busy" you reply. More bad rep for you. This continues. On. and on. and on. They are relentless, always bugging you and never giving you the time of day to accomplish anything worthwhile. When you finally cave in and DO agree, are given a one hour ultimatium on how long they will wait for you, regardless of your current location. Police chase? Better end it soon. On the other side of the city? Don't mess up a single turn! Trying to tie up a few loose ends? Sorry, restart it and finish it later. Because if you miss them, they'll be even MORE mad (yet still bother calling you within the next 10 minutes to start bugging you again.

To make matters worse, getting in touch with THEM is impossible. They all keep different schedules, none of which I bother to memorize (because honestly how often do you want to call the people that bug you the most) and if you call them at the wrong time, BAM, bad rep again. Take them someone they don't like? Also bad. Not to mention that stuff you do with them is generally very, very boring. Bowling? Sitting in a Comedy Clubs? Darts? Drunk Driving? This is all they could come up with? You are rewarded for your incredible patience and for giving up all that limitless fun and adventure you could have in this huge and bustling city with a rousing game of... bowling. Yeah, wow, great idea there.

But this is what I mean when 'realism' just gets in the way of fun. Sure, people would really do that. They would get annoyed when you turn them down for stuff. They would also get annoyed if you called them in the middle of the night. They might even nag you if they havne't heard from you in a while. But why include this if it makes the game annoying? Why do something for the sake of realsim at the cost of fun? Especially in this case, where the returns of doing stuff with friends (back story, character interaction, funny moments, in game rewards like free taxi rides) already include enough incentive for players to do it on their own? It boggles the mind.

These two things alone make me never want to replay GTAIV (something I did repeatedly with GTA III and Vice City) and may even prevent me from purchasing the future 'DLC' material. It may not be enough to make you quit on your first playthrough, where the story, characters and initial exploration can carry you until the end, but once that is over and done the only thing left to do is be constantly and endlessly bugged by your friends while you attempt to do something new or interesting. It's like someone saying they would have preferred Otis to interrupt the more in Dead Rising; it just won't ever happen and really broke up the pacing of an otherwise fine game. When a sandbox game has very low replayability and next to no variety, well, things don't look good for a game that fails in the two very things it is supposed to excel.

However, where character development really shines in the support cast, the development of Nikko is often unbalanced and generally poor. He always claims to be running from his haunted past but almost effortlessly returns to a life of crime again and again, to a point where he just gives up attempting to retain some level of morality and who's only concern is 'what's in it for me'. This makes it difficult to see him actually becoming emotionally attached to ANY character, let alone his girlfriends or his dumb-in-the-head cousin, who Nikko often times goes well out of his way to protect. It feels like they tried to make Nikko plasy a prominent part in two completely different worlds simultaneously - the ruthless, revenge seeking madman who will kill for money and harbors no pity or remorse, and the friendly, happy go lucky boyfriend wishing his cousin all the luck and staying close to family and those nearest to his heart. Instead it makes for a confusing display of an almsot schizophrenic man who on one hand tells his girlfriend he doesn't like the bad things he's doing and then immediately turns around and tells the mob he'll kill anyone they want if the pay is right. And this is someone we're supposed to relate to? It's almost impossible to believe and is perhaps the only negative one can have against the story telling, as you'll never know which Nikko will show up this time: the murderous, vengeful one or the caring, friendly one.

The list of nitpicks just goes on and on. Why can't I have more than 1 car saved at a time? Why are stores spaced so far apart and so difficult to get to? Why so few customization options on what to wear? The list of questionable decisions and gameplay choices just goes on, and on.

Of course the game is not ALL negative, but for a game that recieves a '10/10' by and large in the media one must focus on the negatives to point out just where they are wrong. The cover system works very well (when it lets you actually use a wall or the camera feels like being helpful) and really enhances the fight elements over the GTAIII installments. The missions are really well tied together and often times feel 'epic' or eventful, like you are making a lasting impact on the world and the people around you (even if it has none to your main character). The choices you are given lets you craft Nikko's destiny in a way you choose and even affects the ending you receive, something that is nice for a genre that prides itself on choice and freedom.

You know, it really makes you think. Assassin's Creed is, in many ways, in the same boat as GTAIV. Sandbox games with great stories and characters that fail to impress in replayability and variety. Of course, at least Assassin's Creed's core gameplay is fun and unique as opposed to GTAIV's horrendous driving. But, here we are, GTAIV recieving scroes as though it is the best game ever made and sporting so many '10/10' reviews that it makes me wonder if these reviewers recieved the same game that I did, or even played it at all. Did they want to be the first to review this overly hyped game so bad that they played 10 minutes and then rushed off to write the review? Did they gloss over these errors and annoyances for fear of a customer backlash? Did they give readers what they expected just because it would be what drove the most traffic and sold the most copies? Perhaps. It certianly would explain why Assassin's Creed recieved such terrible marks and GTAIV received such high praise.

Of course, all you were here for is a comparison, right? Well, I gave it away in the title, but it really comes down to what you are looking for. Gameplay, larger than life presentation and a focus on freedom and fun? Saint's Row. Looking for gritty realism, deep characters and a stunning narrative? GTAIV. You'll probably have more fun with Saint's Row (even if you can't bring yourself to admit it) and you'll definitely remember the story and characters from GTAIV more. My recommendation? Play Saint's Row to have fun, GTAIV's story can wait until it's bargain bin. Or maybe pick up Saint's Row 2? I don't know, haven't played it yet...

Here's a breif glimpse into the future: Hopefully, that won't be 2009...

Currently playing:
WoW (in anticipation of WOTLK)
Eternal Sonata (360)
Final Fantasy Tactics Advanced 2 (DS)
Rock Band 2 (360)

What should be next:
The World Ends With You (DS)
Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow (DS)
Spore (PC)
Final Fantasy Tactics Advanced 2 (DS)