He comes to America for revenge, to kill some murderous guy who ruined his life back home. I like the diamond heist sub plot, I think that's the strongest part of the whole story, but Niko's motivations are weak to me.
IV, I struggle with the direction of the story. The only way to kill the boss and survive is to takeover as the most powerful mobster in Vice City. They're a legitimate threat to you, you're in the mob afterall, and you can't just kill the boss because you'll be dead too. Vice City, the bad guys are done pretty well, too. The bad guys in GTAV are non-existent and a fucking mess, and they're all so incompetent that it makes no sense at any time in the game that you - Trevor, Michael, or Franklin - wouldn't just blow them away and move on with your life without them. The bad guys in GTAIV were poorly done compared to San Andreas.
GTASA had a perfect balance of mini-bosses/mini-antagonists (Ryder), story wise, and mainline antagonists/major bosses (Office Pulaski), and then of course the final boss/bosses (Big Smoke, and of course, Frank Tenpenny). By the end of that game, you hate Tenpenny because of the realistic power that he has over you, and you can't just blow him away because he has real power. Jackson, but it's that the threat of Tenpenny is realistic, and he can be present throughout the game in a realistic way, where the player can't kill him for realistic reasons. And it's not just that it's the best actor to ever appear in a videogame, Samuel L. The bad guys are very poorly done throughout the whole game, which was disappointing coming from GTA:SA which has, IMO, the best done antagonist/bad guy of any videogame, ever. I've always thought the IV story was weak because it had poor direction with antagonists.
0 kommentar(er)
