Variety

[LL!]

I've heard it with Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed, and now Game Of The Century Grand Theft Auto IV. I'm not just gonna say I've heard it, but I've yelled out for it as well. I wanna know what makes us as gamers crave so much from these games?

When you look at games through time you'll see that they all have a formula that they follow over and over and over again. Whether they are forced to like Gran Turismo (Let's race! Like a lot!) or they choose to like Super Mario Anything (Go battle through all the mini-enemies, maybe collect some coins, and then kill the boss at the end of the level!)

Mass Effect had essentially the same mission over and over again with minor tweaks like having to find pieces of something, but otherwise it was BLAST THE MOTHER FUCKERS AWAY YOU MUST GET SAREN! Assassin's Creed is the biggest criminal here as it was exactly the same thing over and over and over AND OVER again. Finally, Grand Theft Auto IV has the same style of mission over and over, but not really.

When you look at GTA IV you think, "Boy I've seen THIS mission before." But without going into spoilers, there were plenty of missions where you could go at them at a different way. That with the added random characters, pigeons, races, courier missions, etc. can't be a game that you want more variety of cause it has TONS of it. Plus, it has an excellent multi-player mode. What more do you want?

Basically, why are we asking for so much variety now if games have worked for us through the ages with the same formula?

[Dingle]

SPOILERS PROBABLY

Because of San Andreas is my answer. The game had so many varieties of missions that even similr missions were spread out very well across the game. Ignoring the Jet Pack/Hydra/Parachuting business, this game could have used the Helicopter's more and we could have probably been introduced to different aspects of the game; robbery (IIRC) isn't exactly delved into as much as it could have been. Vice City had a few missions setting up for the bank heist and so did San Andreas, but in GTA IV we have THAT mission just for that.

I dunno, I'm kind of rambling along, but I just feel like we could had so much more from the stuff in the games. Especially for how long the game was in production for (Which was four years I believe?). I have a problem with the length but not a major issue because I don't play the games for the missions only - obviously it's a big part, but the free roaming is fantastic, as is the multiplayer.

I don't buy GTA to have a game where all I do is shoot people and go about my way. We had ONE mission in this game where the dead body mission came up, I recall only one car bomb mission and as I said earlier, just one heist mission.

Another problem I have is that the map is a bit shit IMO. I am not a big fan of the layout of the streets and navigating around the cities seems like such a chore. Of course this could just be me, but it did contribute to a few annoyance during the chase missions because I just got so bored of the map. It seems like you HAVE to follow the GPS or YOUR gonna end up going the wrong way.

I'll add more after other people discuss, minds a bit scattered atm >_>.

[ChrisSteeleAteMyHamster]

Hell, even most of the best games of the early 90s followed exactly the same mechanic (Monkey Island 1 & 2, Beneath A Steel Sky, Indy Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, Day Of THe Tentacle, Sam and Max etc etc)

[Dingle]

If I paid for GTA what youprobably paid for them games, then I wouldn't be fussing either >_>.

[MalaCloudy Black]

I am not a big fan of the layout of the streets and navigating around the cities seems like such a chore.

Really? Navigating SA seemed to be more a chore, especially when you had to go through all these hilly areas or a pissload of desert just to get to one place. Desert and grassy/hilly areas that served little to no purpose. I like GTAIV's layout much better.

[Dingle]

I miss the grassy and desert areas, and my issue is more with the layout of the streets and how you need to actually plan a course. I'm drawing a blank on words to explain what I mean, but if I miss my turning and keep going, quite often I end up doing a U-Turn and having to go back instead of making a later turing. Again, maybe it's just me >_>.

[Docpepper]

I like variety but sometime too much variety becomes overkill for Example: Morrowind for the pc that game is so huge I've been playing it for years and I have yet to delve into the main quests and such because the side quests are good and the world is huge.

The same can be said for San Andreas. after a while , it became a chore in SA just to drive around and do missions.

Sure GTAIV doesn't have that much variety but each mission can be handled in different ways and the map isn't as big as SA. Sure I'd like to have more clothing options or the ability to buy safe houses. Also robbing stores would have been good to include.(I believe it was in vice city but hasn't been seen again(SA had the house robbing stuff ))

in short too much variety is over-kill

[Dingle]

But you are limiting yourself by saying 'Too much'. Noone said 'too much variety is needed', because obviously too much is a negative thing. The problem is, the game doesn't need to be HUGE story wise but I want my missions to be different. Stick with 92 missions, maybe add a few extra, whatever, just give me different things to do.

[Vilge Duin]

I was constantly comparing GTA: SA to GTA IV while playing it. San Andreas just had so much fun shit to do, and a lot of stuff that wasn't even relevant to the game but still fun. GTA IV conversely had more stream lined, and quite frankly linear, feel to it that didn't jive well with the other ones. At least for me. I'm also pretty much done GTA IV whereas San Andreas I played for weeks on end doing this or that.

A key part in any game that has repetition is the ability to proceed differently (thus making it "new") or allowing you to improve something (beat a boss quicker, reach a higher score, etc.). And a big factor is getting to what you want and enjoy as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Take Super Mario Bros. for example. The game is as basic and simple as they come with the occasional wrinkle to switch it up a bit. But with the high score, the timer, power ups and even the warp pipes you can set your own goal or what you want to do. Play a couple levels, go warp to World 8 as quick as possible and beat the game, do the 1-up trick, go to minus world, etc. All in the basic framework of go from side to side, jumping on the occasional object/enemy and collecting coins, you have variety.

You buy GTA to shoot people and drive cars. That's it's basic fundamental nature. Tossing out a random ballet mission where the mechanics don't fit at all with the game or anything else in it kills interest (thus why a lot of sandbox games fail when it comes to GTA, despite the variety Rockstar sticks to what works within their game). Meanwhile allowing you to snipe, blow up, run over and knifed to death a target for assassination gives you variety within that framework. Thus why for me GTA IV isn't as good as the others (or even other sandbox games in recent years). And as an aside, they really need to have a 'select mission' feature so I can go back and play certain missions whenever I damn well please.

That's why I liked Hitman Blood Money over the other ones. You could proceed with each hit in a different way while Silent Assassin didn't quite have that (at least not to the same degree). For most of the hits there were literally half a dozen or more ways to take someone out. You're basically doing the exact same thing, but you can do it how you want. Which is where games succeed.

Something like Assassin's Creed on the other hand was derided for it because despite a perceived forced notion you have variety at your finger tips, you don't. It literally is all the same.