I appreciate ambition and veering off in a different direction for a specific vision, especially one that to this day makes itself stand apart from even other entries in its franchise. I just don't think it was for me.
There's a clear obvious intent that GTA IV was meant to be different bold new direction for the series, not only to jump into a new generation of consoles but to restart from first base after the new highs and ambition that San Andreas had set. Unlike its predecessor which was concerned about the sheer scale of its content and variety, creating something unabashedly charming and actively engaging at every moment, IV is concerned about realism and being grounded. So many of its overhauled systems and structure are geared towards setting an oppressive tone, a different kind of immersion that's not based on "how do we make sure the player cannot possibly be bored at any second" but really making sure the player's firmly in the shoes of what sets Niko apart from every other protagonist in the series and the circumstances that led him to Liberty City. San Andreas wanted the player to not just be CJ but actively transform him into a power fantasy, something you earn over time with every activity you did as you gained control over every part of San Andreas you set foot in. Niko doesn't get to have that power fantasy even as he reaches towards the end of his journey, because every action you take are in the favor of those seemingly in control of that power, which in itself is also torn down to shreds as you quickly learn just how truly miserable and lacking that power of theirs actually is. The closest comparison here might actually be GTA 3, whom not only shares the same location (albeit mostly in name and a very general surface level similarity) but also an initially similar love for its crime lords and mafia gangs duking it out between each other as you change between sides as a yes man before taking matters into your own hands. But unlike 3, the crime lords and mafia gangs you're working for are nearly all drugged out of their minds, in far beyond over their heads for what they're actually dealing with, in a needless desperate hopeless cycle of petty killings just to maintain a status quo that all gets shattered in the end anyways. Claude, Tommy and CJ all get what they wanted in the end for the insane climb to power they go on. Niko only digs himself deeper into a hole that takes away everything from him for his selfish desires.
It's all a nihilistic self-defeating prophecy and vision that Rockstar does faithfully commit to from start to finish. But it's not a vision for me, over a decade after its release with so much other media with unique ideas and spins on cycles of violence, revenge, the falsehood of an "American dream", and just general nihilism. It's Rockstar's satire and edge at its most extreme to an unpleasant degree, and while I get on a surface level that it's why GTA IV is considered the best and darkest story in the series, it's also mind numbing to the core. For a game so deeply focused on wanting to create something "real", so many of its characters feel like South Park stereotypes being played up to their extremes. A lot of them you're not meant to like, only working with as a means to an end, but there's also others that you're just supposed to be indifferent or even like which is all the more baffling when body image obsessed definitely not gay Brucie's calling you as you drive around town asking to go to the strip club to go stare at tits like the real men you both are, or Little Jacob who essentially amounts to an always high on something that asks to go eat out at Burger King stereotype that eventually just serves as a convenient arms dealer to Niko that conveniently shows up towards the end of the game.
I've never liked the excuse of "it was just the times!" because in most cases for media I've seen it used for, I could equally argue that it was rotten from the beginning and it's especially true for just how much of a weird issue GTA IV seems to have against LGBTQ+ people. It's shockingly common for characters to just suddenly bring up how much they don't want to be gay or homosexual, to such a degree where it's used as a negative stigma, a point of comparison for an idea of something someone shouldn't be. A corrupt government officer wonders how Niko could think he's working for the FIB, "those homosexuals." Manny complains about how he's presented on live television by his cameraman's work, "making me look gay, like a transsexual." The only excuse GTA IV has for itself on the way it continually uses a group of poorly represented minorities as a stereotype not to be, is when it introduces Florian/Bernie, the most over the top extreme textbook definition of a gay man who lusts for a man running for city mayor that also happens to be cheating on his wife while using "family values" as his campaign selling point. Niko gets to call him a slur only to then say right at the very end what a good friend Bernie is even if the man he loves is a hypocrite and should do better. Great fucking representation Rockstar, A+ work right there. "It was just the times!" is an excuse that does not fly in my book for this game because Rockstar managed to go three whole mainline GTA games without needing to kick down towards a group of people like this, and because it frankly just reeks of that weird feeling South Park gives off whenever people try to defend the targets it uses for bad taste humor. GTA IV doesn't make everyone a "target", I know it because I just played through the fucking game. There's characters it represents with a genuine honesty that stick with you, like Little Jacob's Jamaican background and incredibly strong accent that never dares to reach for a "can you translate that for me" joke, earning my respect despite how much I don't think he's that interesting of a character story-wise. I shouldn't have to give the game a free pass because it came out in the mid to late 2000s because I have played games in that era and console generation that didn't need to talk down and poorly misrepresent something I feel personally strongly about, let alone games in its own series and the same developer.
Beyond all that though and a bit less grim and upsetting, GTA IV does take new spins on the gameplay formula, and it's the part where I understand that I'm probably in a minority in for just not liking as much as its predecessor. I like game-y video games, and San Andreas fulfilled that want to a T, whereas GTA IV ends up taking away a lot of the sillier stuff like dancing rhythm games, playing dress up all the way to hair styles, working out and exercising to raise up stats; since IV wants to treat Niko as a character of his own and not something that the player gets to evolve, the formula has somewhat stepped back to the basics that GTA 3 actually started with. IV is almost entirely mission focused with only a small number of distractions and side things to go after, the majority of which I quickly grew tired of because they don't change no matter when or where you do them, and sometimes who you do them with. Bowling is a meme and all, but I don't even think it was that bad compared to having to constantly bring people to the pool table or the bar to raise up their friendship meters because otherwise they angrily text and call Niko about how crappy of a friend he is while you're in the middle of driving a truck filled with explosives to some gang you have to take out. Again, cool for the grounded realism! I see the vision there! And again, I just don't think it's for me.
A lot has been said about how vehicles control in IV. I understand the intent behind wanting to make the vehicles heavier, visibly weightier when they sway around off the ground and leaning to the sides when you make sharp turns at fast speeds, because Rockstar wanted to make driving a challenge after how admittedly easy San Andreas made driving around the city at stupid fast speeds and still nailing corners was. Driving around in essentially New York City in modern times should be tougher, and there's an element of satisfaction and tension when you are either chasing someone or are being chased by someone when every screw up means spinning out, watching everything get badly destroyed and bent out of shape, and just barely getting the gas moving again. But I also think the comparisons that vehicles in GTA IV feel like boats or sliding a wet bar of soap along the ground to be too accurate; the realism factor stops really being "real" and actually fun to play when vehicles can't make turns when going above 10 miles per hour, and frankly less skillful compared to all the stuff that San Andreas had a whole in-game driving school to teach you about how its physics worked. Going fast in that game felt exhilarating yet still meaningfully challenging because nice cars that could go fast weren't common and badly damaging them could seriously screw you over when the AI in that game could also drive incredibly fast. The vehicle physics are so undertuned here that even the AI seems to struggle with how cars are supposed to move around; if you even grasp the basic timings of when to slow down around corners and accelerate again, you'll be able to outrun all of the AI drivers in IV because none of them seem to know how to nail it down unless they are intentionally scripted to drive a certain way like in missions. I wouldn't even have an issue with how cars are generally slower period in this game compared to San Andreas if it wasn't for just how bad steering feels in this game and how much it cripples the experience in a series that involves driving cars so heavily.
Combat is an area that does feels meaningfully improved over its predecessors and is maybe the aspect I liked the most out of IV? Rockstar definitely took the criticisms of the PS2 era games to heart here because combat feels brutal and snappy, firefights come and go in that "realistic" instant when headshots always mean an instant kill, people stumble and scream out when shooting and getting shot at, and weapons feel and sound devastatingly impactful; the joke pea shooters of San Andreas are long gone here. The lock-on aiming for console/controllers was also improved to have an actual interactive skill element to it, now letting you try to aim for specific body parts for different reactions instead of being stuck always locked onto the chest unless you were at point blank range like San Andreas was. The snapping can be an annoyance, mainly whenever it just refuses to lock onto new opponents when they come into view unless you let go and hold the left trigger again or when Niko randomly snaps onto something completely separate from what you were just running towards or looking at. It's overall an improvement on what San Andreas set up, even if it fully makes sense why GTA V would later completely step away from the system and opt for more generic free aim with forgiving aim assist.
Rockstar deserves credit for being this bold with a mainstream AAA blockbuster release with a vision that wasn't only just making things prettier and more detailed for a more powerful generation of hardware, but also trying to reinvent the tone and direction the story they told went in a manner that I'm honestly shocked didn't spark more controversy with a general audience as well as fans of the series. It's a game that feels upset with the world but indifferent, not angry enough to change it and instead just continue going with the status quo no matter how terrible and oppressive it may be. It's the start of Rockstar spending countless hours building up insane technology that impresses to this day (even if the atrocious PC port still does not) and paying attention to little details few would probably notice until repeat playthroughs, and also where I think Rockstar's notorious satirical edge really began to show itself. I just also think it's too rough around the edges for me coming after an entry that was so purposefully endearing and charming at its core, happy that it was able to have fun with itself rather than wanting to say something and coming up short instead.
There's a clear obvious intent that GTA IV was meant to be different bold new direction for the series, not only to jump into a new generation of consoles but to restart from first base after the new highs and ambition that San Andreas had set. Unlike its predecessor which was concerned about the sheer scale of its content and variety, creating something unabashedly charming and actively engaging at every moment, IV is concerned about realism and being grounded. So many of its overhauled systems and structure are geared towards setting an oppressive tone, a different kind of immersion that's not based on "how do we make sure the player cannot possibly be bored at any second" but really making sure the player's firmly in the shoes of what sets Niko apart from every other protagonist in the series and the circumstances that led him to Liberty City. San Andreas wanted the player to not just be CJ but actively transform him into a power fantasy, something you earn over time with every activity you did as you gained control over every part of San Andreas you set foot in. Niko doesn't get to have that power fantasy even as he reaches towards the end of his journey, because every action you take are in the favor of those seemingly in control of that power, which in itself is also torn down to shreds as you quickly learn just how truly miserable and lacking that power of theirs actually is. The closest comparison here might actually be GTA 3, whom not only shares the same location (albeit mostly in name and a very general surface level similarity) but also an initially similar love for its crime lords and mafia gangs duking it out between each other as you change between sides as a yes man before taking matters into your own hands. But unlike 3, the crime lords and mafia gangs you're working for are nearly all drugged out of their minds, in far beyond over their heads for what they're actually dealing with, in a needless desperate hopeless cycle of petty killings just to maintain a status quo that all gets shattered in the end anyways. Claude, Tommy and CJ all get what they wanted in the end for the insane climb to power they go on. Niko only digs himself deeper into a hole that takes away everything from him for his selfish desires.
It's all a nihilistic self-defeating prophecy and vision that Rockstar does faithfully commit to from start to finish. But it's not a vision for me, over a decade after its release with so much other media with unique ideas and spins on cycles of violence, revenge, the falsehood of an "American dream", and just general nihilism. It's Rockstar's satire and edge at its most extreme to an unpleasant degree, and while I get on a surface level that it's why GTA IV is considered the best and darkest story in the series, it's also mind numbing to the core. For a game so deeply focused on wanting to create something "real", so many of its characters feel like South Park stereotypes being played up to their extremes. A lot of them you're not meant to like, only working with as a means to an end, but there's also others that you're just supposed to be indifferent or even like which is all the more baffling when body image obsessed definitely not gay Brucie's calling you as you drive around town asking to go to the strip club to go stare at tits like the real men you both are, or Little Jacob who essentially amounts to an always high on something that asks to go eat out at Burger King stereotype that eventually just serves as a convenient arms dealer to Niko that conveniently shows up towards the end of the game.
I've never liked the excuse of "it was just the times!" because in most cases for media I've seen it used for, I could equally argue that it was rotten from the beginning and it's especially true for just how much of a weird issue GTA IV seems to have against LGBTQ+ people. It's shockingly common for characters to just suddenly bring up how much they don't want to be gay or homosexual, to such a degree where it's used as a negative stigma, a point of comparison for an idea of something someone shouldn't be. A corrupt government officer wonders how Niko could think he's working for the FIB, "those homosexuals." Manny complains about how he's presented on live television by his cameraman's work, "making me look gay, like a transsexual." The only excuse GTA IV has for itself on the way it continually uses a group of poorly represented minorities as a stereotype not to be, is when it introduces Florian/Bernie, the most over the top extreme textbook definition of a gay man who lusts for a man running for city mayor that also happens to be cheating on his wife while using "family values" as his campaign selling point. Niko gets to call him a slur only to then say right at the very end what a good friend Bernie is even if the man he loves is a hypocrite and should do better. Great fucking representation Rockstar, A+ work right there. "It was just the times!" is an excuse that does not fly in my book for this game because Rockstar managed to go three whole mainline GTA games without needing to kick down towards a group of people like this, and because it frankly just reeks of that weird feeling South Park gives off whenever people try to defend the targets it uses for bad taste humor. GTA IV doesn't make everyone a "target", I know it because I just played through the fucking game. There's characters it represents with a genuine honesty that stick with you, like Little Jacob's Jamaican background and incredibly strong accent that never dares to reach for a "can you translate that for me" joke, earning my respect despite how much I don't think he's that interesting of a character story-wise. I shouldn't have to give the game a free pass because it came out in the mid to late 2000s because I have played games in that era and console generation that didn't need to talk down and poorly misrepresent something I feel personally strongly about, let alone games in its own series and the same developer.
Beyond all that though and a bit less grim and upsetting, GTA IV does take new spins on the gameplay formula, and it's the part where I understand that I'm probably in a minority in for just not liking as much as its predecessor. I like game-y video games, and San Andreas fulfilled that want to a T, whereas GTA IV ends up taking away a lot of the sillier stuff like dancing rhythm games, playing dress up all the way to hair styles, working out and exercising to raise up stats; since IV wants to treat Niko as a character of his own and not something that the player gets to evolve, the formula has somewhat stepped back to the basics that GTA 3 actually started with. IV is almost entirely mission focused with only a small number of distractions and side things to go after, the majority of which I quickly grew tired of because they don't change no matter when or where you do them, and sometimes who you do them with. Bowling is a meme and all, but I don't even think it was that bad compared to having to constantly bring people to the pool table or the bar to raise up their friendship meters because otherwise they angrily text and call Niko about how crappy of a friend he is while you're in the middle of driving a truck filled with explosives to some gang you have to take out. Again, cool for the grounded realism! I see the vision there! And again, I just don't think it's for me.
A lot has been said about how vehicles control in IV. I understand the intent behind wanting to make the vehicles heavier, visibly weightier when they sway around off the ground and leaning to the sides when you make sharp turns at fast speeds, because Rockstar wanted to make driving a challenge after how admittedly easy San Andreas made driving around the city at stupid fast speeds and still nailing corners was. Driving around in essentially New York City in modern times should be tougher, and there's an element of satisfaction and tension when you are either chasing someone or are being chased by someone when every screw up means spinning out, watching everything get badly destroyed and bent out of shape, and just barely getting the gas moving again. But I also think the comparisons that vehicles in GTA IV feel like boats or sliding a wet bar of soap along the ground to be too accurate; the realism factor stops really being "real" and actually fun to play when vehicles can't make turns when going above 10 miles per hour, and frankly less skillful compared to all the stuff that San Andreas had a whole in-game driving school to teach you about how its physics worked. Going fast in that game felt exhilarating yet still meaningfully challenging because nice cars that could go fast weren't common and badly damaging them could seriously screw you over when the AI in that game could also drive incredibly fast. The vehicle physics are so undertuned here that even the AI seems to struggle with how cars are supposed to move around; if you even grasp the basic timings of when to slow down around corners and accelerate again, you'll be able to outrun all of the AI drivers in IV because none of them seem to know how to nail it down unless they are intentionally scripted to drive a certain way like in missions. I wouldn't even have an issue with how cars are generally slower period in this game compared to San Andreas if it wasn't for just how bad steering feels in this game and how much it cripples the experience in a series that involves driving cars so heavily.
Combat is an area that does feels meaningfully improved over its predecessors and is maybe the aspect I liked the most out of IV? Rockstar definitely took the criticisms of the PS2 era games to heart here because combat feels brutal and snappy, firefights come and go in that "realistic" instant when headshots always mean an instant kill, people stumble and scream out when shooting and getting shot at, and weapons feel and sound devastatingly impactful; the joke pea shooters of San Andreas are long gone here. The lock-on aiming for console/controllers was also improved to have an actual interactive skill element to it, now letting you try to aim for specific body parts for different reactions instead of being stuck always locked onto the chest unless you were at point blank range like San Andreas was. The snapping can be an annoyance, mainly whenever it just refuses to lock onto new opponents when they come into view unless you let go and hold the left trigger again or when Niko randomly snaps onto something completely separate from what you were just running towards or looking at. It's overall an improvement on what San Andreas set up, even if it fully makes sense why GTA V would later completely step away from the system and opt for more generic free aim with forgiving aim assist.
Rockstar deserves credit for being this bold with a mainstream AAA blockbuster release with a vision that wasn't only just making things prettier and more detailed for a more powerful generation of hardware, but also trying to reinvent the tone and direction the story they told went in a manner that I'm honestly shocked didn't spark more controversy with a general audience as well as fans of the series. It's a game that feels upset with the world but indifferent, not angry enough to change it and instead just continue going with the status quo no matter how terrible and oppressive it may be. It's the start of Rockstar spending countless hours building up insane technology that impresses to this day (even if the atrocious PC port still does not) and paying attention to little details few would probably notice until repeat playthroughs, and also where I think Rockstar's notorious satirical edge really began to show itself. I just also think it's too rough around the edges for me coming after an entry that was so purposefully endearing and charming at its core, happy that it was able to have fun with itself rather than wanting to say something and coming up short instead.