Yeah, but I already knew that. You already communicated as much when we initially disagreed. That's all there is to it; it's not a game.

I'm getting pretty sick of people getting worked up over opinions. If you're secure in your opinion, you shouldn't need to say, "I think GTA4 is boring," just saying "GTA4 is boring" should suffice and it should not offend. It's clearly subjective, so stating as much just gets redundant. I don't really know why anyone really cares so much that "imo" becomes a standard way to shield yourself from criticism. It's not needed. I wasn't picking on your opinion, anyway, even though I clearly think you're wrong.

The internet does funny things like that, I assure you, I'm chillin'.Yeah, and that's what gets to me. People shouldn't have to worry about that, but they do. I'm personally against everyone having to qualify every opinion with a statement describing what is obviously an opinion as such. It's not our fault of people can't comprehend what is and isn't subjective, right? I mean, in your own eyes, GTA4 being a boring game is a fact, but you still know that it's just your singular opinion. Everyone else should know that too, and either disagree or agree. You can support your opinions with evidence, in the same way that you might support an objective fact, but that doesn't mean that it's conclusive one way or the other. When it comes right down to it, everyone always has the right to disagree.

I think that's a pretty bold and ridiculous statement. In this case, it's also factually wrong. GTA4 is not universally hated. That is a gigantic overstatement.

And free roam is more fun that no multiplayer, as in every previous GTA3 game.

No, you're just missing out on what is otherwise a great story, a great atmosphere, a great set of characters. You're definitely just avoiding a GAME with GAMEPLAY PROBLEMS.

For someone advocating letting opinion be opinion, you're sure fast to throw around the "WRONGS" and the "BULLSHITS" and pretending like people "don't know what they're missing" when they're making a conscious choice BASED ON THEIR EFFING OPINION.

Oh god, you're doing it now too? If you read what I just wrote, you'll see that I'm railing against people who have a problem with the word wrong (among other things). "You are wrong" can be an opinion too, and again, I don't need to qualify that as my opinion when it's freaking obvious that's what it is. Come on. And I'll continue to disagree--GTA4 is a great game--and I say that with confidence, knowing that it has funky mechanics. There are plenty of games where something ultimately makes up for crap combat. Why on earth would anyone ever play a game like Silent Hill or Resident Evil (for example) otherwise? There are great games with questionable gameplay mechanics, and there are games with great gameplay that just aren't great because they lack content and focus. It happens.

But if it makes you feel better, "I think that's bullshit."

So we don't have to mention that it's our opinion anymore when stating something?
What if it's a fact?

I'm just saying this: the difference between objective and subjective statements should be obvious enough in context. Getting all bent out of shape because someone doesn't qualify a statement with "in my opinion," or "i think" is silly. But that's just my opinion. (lol)

I think humility and respect is far more admirable than some free for all bash fest though. I don't see the value in people yelling extremes at eachother, and I think if anything, seeing things like that just blocks any chance of seeing the other guy's perspective.

I carefully stated that for people like Raptor - or perhaps more comfortable to talk about; me - gaming is different degrees of actually engaging in rewarding MECHANICS. If a game has sluggish, unfulfilling mechanics - and GTA4 does if you've played any other game resembling it - then it really isn't for some *greater cause* that one would wanna stomach that.

You brought up Silent Hill, which is a good example of a game that has questionable combat, but those aren't the endgame of that experience. The "peak" of its gameplay doesn't repeatedly thrust you into situations that ask you to mess up a shit ton of dudes with wonky combat. Know what game did? Silent Hill 4, and people hate that game.

GTA4 has bottom level shooting/cover mechanics. You can pick a game at absolute random with even the littlest page taken out of the Gears mold and get one that plays better. Kane & Lynch has comparable issues, but granted doesn't build a world with awesome narrative and characters around it for people to latch on to and enjoy.

Because that IS the tradeoff in GTA4 and that works for loads of people. It sure did for the press, still heralding GTA4 as supposedly the best *game* on both the 360 and PS3. That's fine though, that's totally okay. I totally see why it is praised like it is, and why people love it, but if you value the tactile feedback of gameplay above all that peripheral story and atmosphere stuff, you can barely find a worse action game to play! Dark Sector feels better!

And all of that can be fact while still being totally okay to disregard because it doesn't bother you. Hell, I've played tons of games with awful stories - or non-existant ones - and for a lot of people that's a total deal breaker. Korn subjected himself to Bayonetta for a couple of seconds and came running out screaming with his hair on fire. That game is the absolute, total reverse of GTA4. It has 100% emphasis on the tactile feel of gameplay, and couldn't care less if it tried about building even close to coherent narrative or believable characters.

The opinion that factors in into this is what you value and enjoy, not the quality of individual elements. Just about anyone can plainly see GTA4 exactly for what it is, but not everyone will enjoy it. Oh and some will obviously not see it for what it is and still have a REALLY LOUD OPINION ABOUT ITTTTT!!, but that's Mr and Mrs Internet. The Internets.

And, if it's a disagreement to claim that GTA4 is great, than I'll continue to disagree. I care more about gameplay mechanics than most, yet I'm still perfectly capable of enjoying GTA4 for "what it is," while thinking it's very well executed despite itself. Look at a game like Crackdown, which has infinitely better mechanics, yet falls so flat in comparison thanks to the borefest (and repetitive) mission design. That's the bane of almost every sandbox game out there, and it's what makes GTA4 a much better experience than most. It's the total package that makes the game.

I actually can't even play SH games for the same reasons that you don't think that GTA4 approaches greatness, yet you think those games are great. Opinions are funny like that. Oh, did I mention this was my opinion? I wanted to make sure I got that in, ya know, just in case there was any misunderstanding ;)Word.

Well, to confuse matters even further, I don't think the Silent Hill games are great, I think they're quite problematic. The reason I can enjoy them regardeless though is that their problems aren't affecting the main objective of the game. Silent Hill is about exploration and puzzle solving, its enemies aren't even particularly threatening. Your biggest concern when facing enemies is conserving ammunition.

There's the whole debate over whether wonky shooting contributes to survival horror intensity, and while I think there's merit to that, I won't go into it now. However, if the main objective of the Silent Hill games - or even a majority of time spent with it - involved its shooting, I wouldn't be able to stand those either.

I never said GTA4 isn't great, I said that if you value the base mechanics of a game over everything else, then the badness of those as it were will make the game "bad" in your eyes. I am SICKENINGLY diplomatic to the point where I sometimes have to slap myself silly and grow some sort of douchebag spine prosthetic, so I can usually actually enjoy a wide variety of games even outside of what I really prefer, but for some people that whole masochistic side to gaming is - healthily enough - not on the cards.

Raptor's already stated his love for Crackdown, so there isn't a great mystery here. Mechanics > all else to him, and part of me totally agrees with that. I too, DEFINITELY, had a shit ton more fun playing Crackdown.

But sure, I see what you're saying about the whole of a game, and the notion of overall quality. GTA4 is a fucking juggernaut of a game, intricately crafted in almost every concievable way. If gameplay is entirely where your heart's at though, those are all like having a beautiful wife, lavish mansion, expensive cars and not being happy.

Part of me agrees with that too. It's certainly a big factor in my enjoyment of FPS games, racers and fighters and the arcadey side of gaming that I am so fond of. But...This is important too.I don't think Crackdown is bad, but I think it suffers from the same problems that make so many sandbox games fall flat. Great gameplay isn't enough to make a sandbox game great. This is even more true in games like Far Cry 2, which is a perfect example of how solid mechanics and a great environment aren't enough to make a sandbox game really stick out. I'm hoping that Crackdown 2 is a much better game than the original, which I think is very good, but misses the mark thanks to a repetitiveness that brings it down.

And of course we could disagree forever. You think Artificial Intelligence is better than Actual Intelligence because you're too good to play games against real people.

AI is less predictable than people = lol. Another thing we'll always disagree on.

You should play Far Cry 2 (if you haven't!). It has pretty solid gameplay and is also an awful game. I think you'll love it.