Yeah, I was hoping to be able to buy cars and have them permanently respawn in my parking spot.

I never really got along that well with GTA. Now, it's not that I didn't like it - I did. The problem was, for me anyway, the missions (not the story, those little interactive bits inbetween) always stuck me as complete shit. I never liked them, and if they keep on with it the way they do, I never will. This is one of the few times I really, honestly agree with Yahtzee instead of just thinking he had valid points and then going on with ignoring them. The missions are boring, they feel like chores. In short, I don't want to do them.

But, ah, the city! Just driving around is endlessly fun, and of course the random slaughter of innocents was never more fun than it is in GTA. Wandering the streets is nearly worth the abominations that serve as most missions. I've always liked the stories, too, and IV is no exception. The characters are, of course, top-notch as well.

To be honest, though, I had more fun in the handheld versions than I did in the console ones. The things I usually end up doing just seem more fulfilling on the PSP than they did on the PS2, or now on the 360. When on the console it just seems like a waste of time without trying to finish the story, and I never do.

GTA is fun, but it's just not great. If they made the missions more interesting than they are now, I might even love it.

Indigo_Dingo:

Cousin_IT:
10/10 does mean perfect, thats why its called a perfect score :-)

So, according to you, something that achieves a 9.7 should be given a 9, despite all rational statistics saying that it gos to 10?

Yes.

The game is good, but it isn't worthy of these 10/10's. The game locks up, gives me the same phone call three times before I can finaly end the call, the MP is unbalanced and takes up alot of time going in or out of.

Love it to death but its not the be-all and end-all of games.

EDIT: What if a game comes out better than GTA IV? You can't give it any more that 100%, so where do you go from the roof?

Fronken:

Indigo_Dingo:

Cousin_IT:
10/10 does mean perfect, thats why its called a perfect score :-)

So, according to you, something that achieves a 9.7 should be given a 9, despite all rational statistics saying that it gos to 10?

uhm, no, a game that achieves a 9.7 should be given a 9.7, there is a reason there are some decimals in there, its because you should Not round it up, and Yes, 10/10 = Perfect Score, it cant get higher.

And for things that don't give decimals?

Indigo_Dingo:

Cousin_IT:
10/10 does mean perfect, thats why its called a perfect score :-)

So, according to you, something that achieves a 9.7 should be given a 9, despite all rational statistics saying that it gos to 10?

Well, actually, we weren't rounding.

9.7=97/100 if you want to look at it like that.

10/10=1/1=100/100=999/999

I don't really see a lot of people bashing GTA 4. It's an amazing game. Yeah, some things were weird, and the realism is kinda... unnerving (makes me feel guiltier when I start running over grannies, but I still do it), but it's a great game.

Indigo_Dingo:

Fronken:

Indigo_Dingo:

Cousin_IT:
10/10 does mean perfect, thats why its called a perfect score :-)

So, according to you, something that achieves a 9.7 should be given a 9, despite all rational statistics saying that it gos to 10?

uhm, no, a game that achieves a 9.7 should be given a 9.7, there is a reason there are some decimals in there, its because you should Not round it up, and Yes, 10/10 = Perfect Score, it cant get higher.

And for things that don't give decimals?

Just thought I'd mention that at the beginning of the review section of every magazine that uses that form of scoring, it says before the reviews that a 10/10 isn't perfect, but as close to it as is achievable. So no, 10/10 isn't perfect, because that's not possible and no one in their right mind would suggest so if they were trying to sell their product. Also, I agree about the decimal thing. The decimals give a more acurate form score, and rounding would lump a lot of games of differing quality in with each other.

Eh, the only people I see that have a problem with number scoring are the people that overcomplicate it. 7 is normal, 8 is great, 9 is fantastic, and 10 means that you should buy it if you are at all into the type of gameplay. Simple as that. Don't bother with crap like "is this ten better then that ten?" or "is 7.6 really that much better then 7.5?" Just find a magazine, website, or individual reviewer whose reviews you tend to agree with (OXM for me, and by the way, GTAIV got a 9.5 from them, not a ten, so take that as you will), and just trust in them.

Cousin_IT:
10/10 does mean perfect, thats why its called a perfect score :-)

Sorry, but Ign actually calls 10/10 'masterful'. Most reviewers call 10/10 something other than perfect, for the reasons Ding pointed out.

As for the question in the first post, simple: the answer is hype. The game is hyped, like about every other nextgen high profile game these days. Perfect scores making teens expect the next coming of christ when they put in the dvd in their console. Oh noz, I dislike some aspects. Rant online ensues titled EPIC FAILZORZ, GTA suxorz my unfilled boxorz!!1! 1/10.

Every game will have pro's and con's, again people please take reviews with a big grain of salt.

No.The point is that in 90% of 10/10, 10 IS perfect.Because every 10/10 has a different "value".

Example: In CD-Action, a Polish Magazine that I read, they tend to give out at least three to four 10/10 a year.Yes, they gave GTA 4 a 10/10.

Now look at IGN.Their FIRST Console 10/10 since Ocarina of Time.

Now tell me which 10/10 holds more value.The one that's given out every few months(The "Excellent" score) or the one that hasn't been given out for ten fucking years(The "Perfect" Score)?

People are pissed off because GTA4 doesn't deserve to be the first game to get a 10/10(The "Perfect" score) since X years.

...I know this sounds like a clusterfuck but I hope you'll get the idea.

Knight Templar:

Indigo_Dingo:

Cousin_IT:
10/10 does mean perfect, thats why its called a perfect score :-)

So, according to you, something that achieves a 9.7 should be given a 9, despite all rational statistics saying that it gos to 10?

Yes.

The game is good, but it isn't worthy of these 10/10's. The game locks up, gives me the same phone call three times before I can finaly end the call, the MP is unbalanced and takes up alot of time going in or out of.

Love it to death but its not the be-all and end-all of games.

EDIT: What if a game comes out better than GTA IV? You can't give it any more that 100%, so where do you go from the roof?

Then we raise our standards. After this GTA4 fiasco, some really good games are going to get lower scores because the people who review them are going to nit-pick a bit more and therefore, the standard is raised.

Or a game has equal perfection or something close to it and we have 2 "perfect" games.

GTA4 is no where near the standards of LoZ:OoT because games have evolved so much since then.

Indigo_Dingo:
Since I started coming to this site, I've been exposed to some of the weirder genuses of the Gamer species. One I've been noticing is people who call GTA IV shit. This troubles me on a number of levels, as I recently met one of these in real life, in one of my many social groups (okay, one of the four I attend in my capacity as a first year university student). The game continues GTA's penchant for excellent storytelling (Okay, the betrayal is becoming pretty monotonous, like every character has a bloody bullseye painted on their spine), brilliant voice acting, and downright cool everything, as well as adding a "skip the monotonous aspect to the driving" feature, complex relationships with perks...

Wait, I'm rambling. Bad Dingo. No babies for you tonight.

My point is people keep claiming that GTA IV is crap, and leaving it at that. There is nothing I have seen that means the game does not deserve its 10/10. Before you start, 10/10 does not mean perfect, its a rounding thing. It means the thing is pretty damn close, with one or two issues to it. What I want to know is why people keep calling it crap.

Can I pick a few things apart here? I hope you're not counting GTA III in your inclusion of "Excellent storytelling", as you basically get thrown in In Medias Res to a staged prison breakout and jump from one employer to the next, seemingly popping in at random to move the plot forward, whilst just doing whatever the hell you like in the meantime. "Brilliant voice acting"? The protagonist HAD no voice! And most other people were either nasal to the point of wanting to smash their faces in, or possessed some kind of speech impediment or accent that made me think "You're so lucky you're paying my wages, man." Downright cool everything? Hmmm, I wouldn't say so. Whilst it can be fun for satisfying the urge for wanton destruction, the combat engine leaves something to be desired, as it had some very annoying issues with rapid-fire weapons over long distance, like Space Invaders, and as a whole the game was fairly shallow. Seeing as that's my only experience with the GTA universe, I'm unable to cast opinions about any of the other games, but just thought I'd point out that there's at least one exception to your analogy there.

I liked GTA 4
its a 10.

YOu cannot review GTA 4 accurately as a sequel, dont compare it to San andreas, vice city, etc. or you will always be let down. Review it on its own, as a game not a sequel, imagine you have never played any GTA game, then review it.

I think that on the scale of, all the games we have ever played, this one is the best so far, and thus deserves 10/10 100/100 A+ whatever, is an appropriate justification

I dont think GTA is perfect 98/100 is a good score imho.

I would have liked to have seen:
planes, who gives a crap if you cant fly around open deserts like gta sa. I want mah planes back.
co-op for the whole game: the 3 co-op missions are awesome. next time co-op whole game plox
taxi missions, ambulance missions, fire engine missions; I dont care that they were boring and nobody ever did them all. It was cool knowing you could steal a taxi/ambulance/fire truck and know you could earn money by pressing right thumbstick in and doing mini missions
relationships: conversations interesting, but quickly becomes chore, also why is it that nico only ever goes out with one male friend at a time, like a man-date. nico gay? well he is registered on that website... lol
Crazy weapons: I wantz minigun, flamethrower, chainsaw, etc. and more melee weapons, variety is lacking, also how about a new gun that shoots angry lemmings or something, something crazy and fresh

paddy_soldier:

YOu cannot review GTA 4 accurately as a sequel, dont compare it to San andreas, vice city, etc. or you will always be let down. Review it on its own, as a game not a sequel, imagine you have never played any GTA game, then review it.

If it were the first in the series, then GTA4 would be brilliant. The thing is, it's not the first game. You outright said that it isn't as good as the games that came before it, so why cut it any slack at all? The game is a disappointment, because it is a weak link in an otherwise strong chain.

only 'big' problem with gta 4 was how freaking real it was. You know how bad i felt when i hit a car head on, only to see the guy leaning on his steering wheel dead? I felt bad. I dont want to feel bad about a virtual guy i killed.
And when i first got the game, I was thinking I could go 150mph down a road and hit the handbrake and make a sharp turn. but nooo i had to crash and fly out my window.
and the cop chases arent as fun as they used to be. too easy to get away
other then that, i like the game.

First of all, i don't believe in scores. Secondly, a perfect game needs nothing to excuse it. If you play a game and miss something (reasonably speaking, of course), then it's because the game isn't perfect. Thirdly, i prefer vice city. I think that game was the franchise's finest hour. The Town is big enough to be diverse, but small enough that you don't feel lost (i'm looking at you, san andreas). The characters were genuinely funny (the cubans, for instance) and the whole mood seemed fresh and original. I Still have it installed in my pc.

Maybe it's because I'm a little retro inside, but i thought the game wasn't as good as i expected.

I still think Vice City is the best GTA game thus far, but after the clusterfuck of a gameplay experience I experience with San Andrea, GTA4 is most welcome and honestly really very good. It's the best current-gen game available, at least in terms of single player campaign. I haven't tried the multiplayer so I can't really comment on it, but it's my understanding that plenty of people are enjoying themselves.

Why is GTA called crap by some people? Take anything (or anyone) that is famous. You are bound to find at least a few people who are not amused, without any special reason, but vehemently vocalize their discontent nonetheless. The Internets is your best bet to find them. The golden rule of expressing opinions on the net is the same as for depicting reality in anime - exaggeration is always good.

Yahtzee hit it on the head like a few mentioned with San Andreas - that it's all about simulation and realism now. Call me old fashioned, but I love my games fantasy and fun i.e. Give me Sega Rally Revo over Gran Turismo any day.

I stopped playing after GTA III because I don't find having to dedicate hours watching TV and feed myself in VR in GTA any more fun than I do pointlessly levelling characters in RPGs.

I also think sandbox games are overrated. In real life, if you're given a car, at first it's fun driving about, but as time goes by it ends up being a chore you take for granted.
Same for sandbox with me. I love exploration, but rushing around a city 'realistically' doesn't hold my attention any more than just walking around my neighbourhood in RL. Give me a game with great gameplay, fun multiplayer or a gripping plot instead.

Running around the levels in Mario Sunshine held my attention more than GTA 3 ever did.

It's the same old thing as you always see, GTA4 is big , new , good and popular, therefore there's a group of people who've decided its their job to bash it purely because its not small, independent, unique and breakthru.

You know, I still like donuts, and I've loved em for years, but if I bite into one and find lettuce and mayonnaise, I'm not gonna be happy because its 'new and innovative'.

I'm not knocking new, or small games companies or anything, but GTA4 is good. How good is a varied opinion, but surely most people will agree its at least worthy of 'good'.

As for the sandbox in Burnout Paradise tho...screw that, I want to go 'click - race - click - that track - click - GO!' I DONT want to be cruising around some pointless streets for pointless minutes in the vain hope I can find some elusive gameplay, the joy of Burnout since day one was realism didnt have any place there, here's the joypad, here's some fun, now go smash them together at 200mph seven thousand times.