Grand Theft Auto 5 Review - People Suck

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
 

Tim Chuma:
There was a game in the 1990s called "The Killing Cloud" that had a torture mechanic that Amnesty International objected to so the developers dropped it
http://www.mobygames.com/game/killing-cloud

No chance of that now I suppose.

Interesting the game is rated R18+ in Australia for Drug Use and not "violence that is relished or cruel" although that applies to erotica, the Pirates! porno had to be released with a separate disc just for the fight scenes due to the Non-Violent Erotica standards for X-Rated content.

Movies such as "Dogs in Space" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092904/ were given R18+ ratings on release for "depicting a degenerate lifestyle" as did "Pure ****" that was banned for showing actual drug use http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075111/

What are they saying already $1billion dollars in sales predicted?

Well, a lot comes down to the guts of the devs and publishers. Typically it's easier to capitulate than to fight to keep a vision the way you want it, so you rarely see video games taking on political groups in defense of objectionable content anymore. That said the 1990s were when you actually did see some fighting back (over games like Night Trap).

As far as movies being banned, tons of them got banned during the 1980s in the UK, the operating term at the time was "video nasties" there is an article on Wikipedia showing what titles got banned during this time, the whole thing was eventually overturned though, which also did away with most similar "follow the leader" bans you saw happening all over the world at the time.

To be honest I didn't much care for what they did with GTA after "San Andreas" (I am not a GTA IV fan) so I wasn't particularly looking forward to "V". To me it seems like someone decided that the idea of having unlikable psycopaths with no redeeming features was a great idea, just like the guys who did "Kane And Lynch" and well... you see how well that went. At least the game itself is apparently a lot better than the K&L ones though. To be honest from what little I've heard I don't think the issue is so much the characters being irredeemably bad (as opposed to good guys doing bad things) so much as they aren't likable.

Finally someone with the gall to criticise this game, and they go for the writing and not the outdated gameplay...

I've been having too much fun playing this game to really care about any reviews.

O maestre:
Mr. Tito has recently reviewed rts and tbs games and the last game that is comparable to this was Zombie-U given 3.5 stars as well. It is very hard for me to see the consistency in any of it, unless Mr. Tito is holding GTA up to another standard than the usual escapist reviews.

Here are some open world "crime" games I've played and enjoyed:

Saint's Row 3 - http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/9221-Saints-Row-The-Third-Review (ignore the video, it was a failed experiment)
Sleeping Dogs - http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/9860-Sleeping-Dogs-Review
Just Cause 2 - http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/7358-Review-Just-Cause-2 (gameplay failed me, but I enjoyed it nonetheless)
Assassin's Creed 3 - http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/10015-Assassins-Creed-III-Review (unlikeable main character, but in this case Connor's demeanor didn't outweigh the gameplay for me)
Infamous 2 - http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/8954-Infamous-2-Review
Red Dead Redemption - my vote for 2010 GOTY
Saint's Row 4 - my current vote for 2013 GOTY
All the previous GTAs from 3 on

Point is: I like this genre. I play the crap out of it. And GTA V's story failed because it forced the player to commit despicable acts for no reason. Every other game above has a choice mechanic or a thread of nobility to make the characters empathetic, even if they commit terrible acts. GTA V ignores people who may be uncomfortable with the subject matter.

In my opinion, that's bad writing, but you are more than welcome to form your own opinions on the game. That's what will make this medium great, the discourse between players, gamemakers and critics, and I certainly accept and even applaud opposing viewpoints on GTA V.

Greg

Right. I made an account to post here, so I might as well start.

I got GTA V two days ago. I've played it a bit since then. And I can agree, it's sure as hell not a 10/10. 7/10 feels a little low, but I can very well see where the negative points have come from. He's right. The characters are despicable. I actively go out of my way to avoid playing as Trevor. This is from a guy who hasn't throughly played a GTA game since it was top-down. From the little bit of GTA IV I played, I got a feeling from Niko that, even though he was a mass-murdering psychopath, it didn't feel like you were playing a person you hated.

Also, I'm probably biased, having come directly from Saints Row IV, but this game freaking hurts. the driving, while good, still has a few flaws, as does some of the other stuff in the game.

The review given was good, but the score itself was probably a little too low, but I get the feeling that if most people were to give this game a score of their own, they wouldn't take into account the characters themselves, or most of the dialogue (Which I personally hated as well. There's only so many times you can use the N-Word before it becomes stupid), which it probably what accounts for most of the higher scores.

And it's nice to see something that isn't praising it like it shines out of God's ass. Kind of wish I'd seen this before I played it, because having seen nothing bad about it beforehand, I was kind of let down when I got it myself.

GTA 5 defense aside, i do feel there is a consistency issue here. Which is a pity because GTA5 is far from a perfect game. I guess this is a 'nobody wins' kind of thing...

Strange that some people just want to see this game get a bad review. LOL. But meh.................

Greg Tito:

All the previous GTAs from 3 on

All the previous GTA's from 3 on? How so? Tommy Vercetti committed murderous acts in his bid to take over Vice City. He didn't do it to avenge any friends or to appease the Forellis. He even treated Lance Vance, one of the few characters who sought revenge for personal reasons, like crap later on.

Over the course of the game, he: Initiates a riot for Avery at a delivery company (because Avery wanted the land), likely resulting in many deaths/injuries. Murders a man who refuses to sell land to Avery. Blows up a construction site full of workers for Avery. Starts a gang war for Avery. Murder's Candy's manager for refusing to allow her to work for him. Forces local businesses to pay him protection money. Blows up a store in the mall. Murders competing cab drivers to make his own cab business successful. Sells drugs from an Ice Cream truck.

BTW, these are all story missions. Forced on the player. You are also forced to engage in some of the asset missions in order to progress the story.

In the ending cut-scene, he even brags/jokes about his reputation as a psychotic killer and drug dealer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGVShT_GFgA

How is he redeemable again? How is he "emphatic"? How is he different from the so called "psychos" in this game? I'm not seeing it.

Prior to his brother getting arrested, CJ murdered for his gang and even helped OG Loc by breaking into Madd Dogg's manor and killing his manager (an innocent civilian) and stealing his rhyme book. He also goes on a crime spree to help his brother, a gang-leader, get out of prison. He helped Tenpenny to protect his own neck.

As far as Claude, I can't really speak on his motivations since he never talked. Form the perspective of the player, it's assumed he wants to kill Catalina....But he's a emotionless killer, so who knows what he wants; also, since he's ruthless and brutal; he's surely not sympathetic. He strikes me as someone who would kill his own mother if the price were right.

I have only ever played one GTA game - GTA III - and I didn't think much of it. I played Saint's Row 2 for a couple hours and got bored.

The heists in this game sound interesting, but I'm not sure if having a trillion things to do which aren't especially fun is actually a good thing - filler is bad.

I did find it interesting that the reviewer found the protagonists to be so reprehensible that it damaged their enjoyment of the game. This is certainly a possibility - there is crossing the line, and then there is crossing the line twice. And sometimes you can cross it three times. Whether it doesn't go far enough, or it manages to go so far that it goes beyond too far and into way too far, I don't know.

I dunno. The heists sound fun, but the rest of the game doesn't appeal to me at all. Beating prostitutes is hardly entertainment to me.

Thank you for giving an honest review. I'm so tired of cookie cutter its awesome or horrible reviews of games or movies. Whether or not I agree or not with your view (I do), I appreciate the fact that its honest well thought out and articulate. Thank you again and keep up the good work ---End of line---

Given that the OP article is a bit ambigious, and many of the response posts (as was predictable) are nothing more than fanboy rants based on fantasy land (my favorite one went like this: Rockstar have just removed any false justifications. Now you can be a bad guy, or you can choose to not be. It's a new dimension of "Player Choice (tm)"). Haha, since when does the player have ANY CHOICE WHATSOEVER in a GTA game, over the plot? The player never, even since the very first GTA (which most of you "hardcore fans" probably never played, and thus do not understand where most of current mainstay gamemechanics come from - like i.e. the outdated wanted stars system, and the fragile "throwaway"-cars)... the player never in any GTA game had a choice over how the plot develops. It's not even a tree-plot (meaning, subsequent missions changing significantly because of choices in past missions). Now does the player have ever had much choice in HOW to do a mission. Heck, for most GTA games, you couldn't even friggin decide with which VEHICLE to do a given mission - or in SA, sometimes couldn't even choose your weapon, but instead got the weapons you bought with hard cold cash, DELETED, replaced with what the mission designers wanted you to have at an arbitrary point in the game).

So yeah, *censored* *censored* *censored* please stop talking about player choice and freedom in GTA games already, mkay? As much as GTA is hyped as the king of sandbox game, it doesn't deserve most of the hype. That's because, even though GTA is VERY advanced technically, about streaming a massive environment that is gigabytes big, over slow ram-bus and video-pipeline.... while it is capable of streaming graphics and stuff of a giant world really fast, and yes, does have a - quantitatively - giant world.... none of this got anything to do with PLAYER FREEDOM. Well, okay, if you consider running around in a giant gameworld, shooting up stuff, with your actions someway having no longterm consequences at all freedom (did anyone ever figure out, where the cop-factory is and how it manages to produce cops so fast?), if you call that "player-freedom", then yes, GTA has it mastered.

But that's not what this article was about. This article was about the overly HARDCODED and RAILROADED LINEAR PLOT, that is part of GTA since it's third installment (GTA1 and GTA2 had those missions too, but there wasn't really any significant overarching plot - just a bunch of random missions to take in sequence. And the progagonist neither had a voice, nor words - he didn't talk at all, had no background, no nothing. There was no "character", just the "player"). Slightly drifting off, so getting back to the topic: What the article basically said was:

- GTAV makes me play characters i dont like
- (implicitely) i have no choice to play differently. The railroaded plot does not let me advance, unless i do what it commands (no player freedom AT ALL regarding the plot!!!)
- Since it makes me do things i personally do not like, and does not let me act differently, i'm forced to do things i do not want to do.

Being forced to do things one personally does not want to do, is about the worst thing you can do to a player.... or any person in a given situation.

Now, to be fair: Not any medium or game or whatever, can care to the taste of EVERY possible player on the planet. That's just ridiculous. You don't go into a shop and buy some consumer good, with the expectation that it will be "just right" for EVERYONE no matter what, unless you're beyond retarded (though, marketing departments certainly wish for you to become this retarded).

So where does that leave GTAV? Basically:

- If you like being a "bad sadistic cruel guy, with relatives and friends that betray you", so an all out no-holds "evil side" character, then GTAV will be just right for you, and you'll have a lot of fun.

- Everyone else will either ignore the game alltogether, complain about being forced to do things he/she hates to do (ZERO PLAYER FREEDOM HERE!), or admire it for the tech (then again, i DO have some embarassing things to say about the tech, if anyone wants to know. Yeah, the graphics are all nice - unfortunally, actual gameplay consequences (physics!) totally conflict with what you see, which is really irritating, and worse than GTASA)

So yeah, if you enjoy fancy graphics, or being a bad guy for no reason, buy this game. If not, you might want to rent it before buying, to help you decide if it's worth your money.

I mostly lurk on these boards and watch reviews without saying anything.

I understand this is the reviewers opinion and they are entitled to it.

But I have to disagree with the amount of points are deducted from the game because you disliked the characters. I could understand if the characters where written poorly to deduct points for that, but they are written well. And that torture scene you're forced to do, really is pretty tame. I don't see the controversy people are trying to make with it. It really didn't seem that bad when I did it in my play through, and I'm still confused at the counter point about killing people doesn't feel gamey enough. Felt pretty gamey to me, I've yet to do a mission where I felt bad/conflicted with what I was doing (aside from the torture scene, but it didn't make me hesitate). It felt at all times like I was playing a game. So as I said confused at what you mean with this point maybe list an example?

As for the dialogue complaints I also find this confusing. I felt it was authentic, yes people say the N-word that much. yes people curse a ton when they are frustrated and or doing illegal activities. Cliche? sure but Cliches come from truth.

Overall I felt you wrote a good review but I still feel you deducted way more points than you should've from the game, I'm not saying it's perfect but having played Saints row 4 compared to this, I'm enjoying this game WAY more. I've logged about 22 hours into Saints row 4 to get 100% completion, so far I'm at 16 hours in GTA 5 with 30% completion. But once again these are just our opinions and we're all free to have one.

Wow didn't think I'd find a review like this one on the internet .. This is basically what I've been thinking most of the time while playing it ! It's just so sinister . I mean GTA 4 wasn't very lighthearted either, but GTA 5 is different .. I guess soulless is the word I'm looking for . Noone really has any believable emotional bonds to anyone else . Come to think of it Max Payne 3 had a very bleak and depressing feel to it aswell . Almost makes me think Dan Houser might be going through some rough times and it influences his writing or something

Maiev Shadowsong:

Greg Tito:

Calibanbutcher:
Just one thing I forgot to add: So "killing not being fun but actually unpleasant" is NOT pushing the boundaries of video-games?

Are you saying that we should STRIVE for mindless run-and-gun violence in video-games instead of an immersive experience with a narrative that actually gives killing some wheight?

The game doesn't give killing any weight, unfortunately. I wish it did. I wish there was any remorse displayed by the characters. Instead you get mindless screaming and lame quips.

But you spend the entire review telling us how non-gamey the death is and how horrible it is to bear witness to. But now it's mindless and zaney again. Now there's "no weight" to the killing. Every quote you offer is contrary to the last.

I don't think you actually know what you think of the game and simply wanted a review up.

If you focused on the context of his review, you would get it. Usually, characters can often reflect the feelings of a players about a certain subject, and usually, having a lot of alignment between the character and the player can forge a stronger immersion effect.

Its hard to feel immersed with a nonredeemable scumbag, if you don't align with their joys and sorrows, understand? In the situations that you can't exactly feel aligned, having a understandable motive for all plot points is helpful too. For example-If you are a good person, playing a man that does horrible deeds for the sake of his children. Some people can identify, or at least respect, family love and loyalty.

A generally good person watching evil things in plots happening due to "Just because" can wear on a person, particularly if the actions are a direct affront upon their moral code.

Why do characters need a set of principles or motives beyond money? This is a video game, an alternate reality, it shouldn't necessarily be an example of what people should do, we should have more games exploring characters who are simply evil by nature.

The three men you take control of throughout the game aren't even anti-heroes. They're just scumbags.

Um... isn't that the point of the game? Hell, hasn't that been the point of every GTA game? Throughout the series you play as guys who go around constantly killing people and performing terrible deeds. Really the characters here aren't any worse than the characters in the other games. If you're going into this game expecting the characters to be good people, then you seriously need to get your priorities straight. Not every protagonist has to necessarily be a good person, just like how not every antagonist has to be absolute evil. When it comes to storytelling there really isn't any boundaries on what can be told. I think characters like the ones in this game are worth exploring and looking into. I also found them all to be 3-dimensional, interesting characters.

Having played both the missions that Greg took offence to, I can't say that I agree. From my play through, it's obvious that Michael is bound by things other than greed for why he does things. Also the torture scene was very difficult to play through, and I think thats WHY it was included...it backs up Trevor's exposition on the evils of torture later on.

So far, I'm loving the writing, and the dialog is some of the best i've seen in GTA.

Therumancer:

Well, a lot comes down to the guts of the devs and publishers. Typically it's easier to capitulate than to fight to keep a vision the way you want it, so you rarely see video games taking on political groups in defense of objectionable content anymore. That said the 1990s were when you actually did see some fighting back (over games like Night Trap).

As far as movies being banned, tons of them got banned during the 1980s in the UK, the operating term at the time was "video nasties" there is an article on Wikipedia showing what titles got banned during this time, the whole thing was eventually overturned though, which also did away with most similar "follow the leader" bans you saw happening all over the world at the time.

To be honest I didn't much care for what they did with GTA after "San Andreas" (I am not a GTA IV fan) so I wasn't particularly looking forward to "V". To me it seems like someone decided that the idea of having unlikable psycopaths with no redeeming features was a great idea, just like the guys who did "Kane And Lynch" and well... you see how well that went. At least the game itself is apparently a lot better than the K&L ones though. To be honest from what little I've heard I don't think the issue is so much the characters being irredeemably bad (as opposed to good guys doing bad things) so much as they aren't likable.

I don't really watch "video nasties" myself, but do have friends who are fans and also of horror movies. I have been to couple of screenings of the local horror society including Jaws 2 and Slumber Party Massacre 2, but they were more of an event.

Not that I would watch "torture porn" movies like Saw/Hostel/Wolf Creek or a Serbian Film myself either.

If they made the torture parts of GTA V skippable I would consider playing it. I did not play the assassin missions in Skyrim as I did not want to and the game left the choice open to you.

So you'd rather have anti-hero's that give the player some false justification for their horrible acts?

Maybe Rockstar is making their characters pure evil so there is some more weight to your decision. Maybe they made the story this way so you couldn't run away from your violent actions by saying "but he is doing it for a good reason!".

Because honestly, there is not a single GTA game where the protagonist has a good enough reason for the mindless violence that you are allowed to commit.

This critique of Grand Theft Auto does not make any sense.

[Kira Must Die]:

The three men you take control of throughout the game aren't even anti-heroes. They're just scumbags.

Um... isn't that the point of the game? Hell, hasn't that been the point of every GTA game? Throughout the series you play as guys who go around constantly killing people and performing terrible deeds. Really the characters here aren't any worse than the characters in the other games. If you're going into this game expecting the characters to be good people, then you seriously need to get your priorities straight. Not every protagonist has to necessarily be a good person, just like how not every antagonist has to be absolute evil. When it comes to storytelling there really isn't any boundaries on what can be told. I think characters like the ones in this game are worth exploring and looking into. I also found them all to be 3-dimensional, interesting characters.

Exactly! This is a false reality, a game. It is fiction. Sometimes stories are told about evil people that do bad things for bad reasons. If we don't allow stories to encapsulate both ends of the moral spectrum then we are doing a disservice to art and culture.

I don't mind the scoring at all. He has a point, and has thus illustrated it. I don't have to agree with him.

For those of you who remember back to 2010, the Escapist used to just do written/video reviews and did not give "scores". With no numeric score attached to this review I think some of the negative knee-jerk reactions wouldn't have been so bad, because Tito's main complaints are legitimate explanations of his perspective and experience and you can't tell him he's wrong about what his experience was like.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/7149-What-Our-Review-Scores-Mean

Based on the Escapist's review score scale, a 3.5 is between average and outstanding. I think that it would be untrue for Tito to have given GTAV a 5, because that would mean it was not just a great game but that "the experience you'll have will be exceptionally enjoyable". His beef with the story and characters is one that would preclude a 5. Maybe you could argue that he went overboard with the 3.5 rating and that a 4 would be more deserved. But if you actually listen to what he said, he pointed out all the good parts, and was specific about what he didn't like. If you're OK with all that stuff then to YOU it may be a 5, but it's not to him.

For me I'm not sure what's so ground-breaking about GTAV. It looks like more of the same thing we've had since Vice City - it looks more like a new coat of paint than a new construct.

The only things i hated were:-
1. Franklin talking to his "homies", did we really need them to say "nigga" "dog" or "homie" every other word in a sentence?
2. Should have been more heists, even just a variety of jewel shops, bank robberies etc. There was only around 4 or 5 heists, and you only make money from the last one and the 1st job most of it goes to paying off another mafia guy.
3. A lot of the business are pointless to buy, most just give you more jobs to do like taxi driving or car crushing. Fact there isnt much money (until the end) it doesnt make it worth investing in them. Like with car crushing, you would have to crush over a hundred cars just to cover the cost of buying the place.
4. Police - why are the police so annoying in GTA games? They get psychotic at times. If you change cars and there are no police to see you, that should work. If you buy new clothes without the police seeing you walk into a shop - that should count in lessening the star count against you. You can be completly hidden and the police still find you just because you were caught in their cone of vision. Even if you are under the free way. How can they see you?

Would give the game a 4 out of 5. There are issues, but those dont stop it from being a brilliant game and a great experience. Maybe there will be DLC to add more heists. That in itself would make the game 5/5 for me.

You cited Godfather part 2 as a story in which the main character's actions are so far from the norm that they're unwatchable. Another example of this would be Breaking Bad.

I think you should consider the idea that as more and more anti-heroes have pushed the sociological boundaries of narratives, it's become less necessary for the audience to root for the character's, or to be able to root for them.

Just look at Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs. How about Citizen Kane? Being confused as to who to root for adds moral complexity to a story.

Where Gta V has a lot of narrative novelties you're overlooking. It may not have nailed it, satirically, but the way it goes about satirizing is really interesting. :)

I had been hearing about this review of GTA V. This is my first time going through it just to see what the fuss is about. If the review is to be believed (I've never played any of the GTA series and have no inclination to start), it sounds like GTA V is a well-executed from the point of view of just being a compilation of coded software. However, from the point of view of being a coherent, sensible creative work, it's a complete dismal failure with no real purpose to its existence. That's the impression that I'm getting.

Although, as I said, I've never played any of the GTA games and have no inclination; so, take my opinion with some significant salt.

Seems like Rockstar were trying to address the dissonance people complained about in IV, how Nico would bemoan killing one minute then be laying waste to the city the next minute. By making the protagonists "scumbags," that issue evaporates. I think it was a smart choice on Rockstar's behalf. And yeah there's low brow humor, but that's always kind of been GTA's thing. I liken it to South Park, sharp satire of contemporary America interspersed with toilet humor.

I hated playing as Trevor and found Franklin to be a bit dull, but I loved playing as Michael and thought he was anything but just a generic scumbag. If Mr. Tito wants to always play a white knight, I suggest he stick to Skyrim (or the "perfect" Dragon Age 2).

Greg Tito:

O maestre:
Mr. Tito has recently reviewed rts and tbs games and the last game that is comparable to this was Zombie-U given 3.5 stars as well. It is very hard for me to see the consistency in any of it, unless Mr. Tito is holding GTA up to another standard than the usual escapist reviews.

Here are some open world "crime" games I've played and enjoyed:

Saint's Row 3 - http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/9221-Saints-Row-The-Third-Review (ignore the video, it was a failed experiment)
Sleeping Dogs - http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/9860-Sleeping-Dogs-Review
Just Cause 2 - http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/7358-Review-Just-Cause-2 (gameplay failed me, but I enjoyed it nonetheless)
Assassin's Creed 3 - http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/10015-Assassins-Creed-III-Review (unlikeable main character, but in this case Connor's demeanor didn't outweigh the gameplay for me)
Infamous 2 - http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/8954-Infamous-2-Review
Red Dead Redemption - my vote for 2010 GOTY
Saint's Row 4 - my current vote for 2013 GOTY
All the previous GTAs from 3 on

Point is: I like this genre. I play the crap out of it. And GTA V's story failed because it forced the player to commit despicable acts for no reason. Every other game above has a choice mechanic or a thread of nobility to make the characters empathetic, even if they commit terrible acts. GTA V ignores people who may be uncomfortable with the subject matter.

In my opinion, that's bad writing, but you are more than welcome to form your own opinions on the game. That's what will make this medium great, the discourse between players, gamemakers and critics, and I certainly accept and even applaud opposing viewpoints on GTA V.

Greg

No Mr.Tito, every other GTA game does not offer you a choice in every situation or some sense of nobility. In VC you kill cops (not dirty cops mind you) for no reason other than you need the uniforms.

GTA 5 "makes you do terrible things" but never for no reason. As I pointed out before, your "life invader" example was taken out of context and showed that your either choosing to misrepresent that scene or you skipped the cutscenes that explained why you are doing the hits.

If you don't like the game, fine, give it a bad review, but at least be professional. Don't make dishonest claims about the game and don't spend an entire review whining and then give it a high score. It shows that you care more about how people see your review than the quality or helpfulness of the review itself.

If your written review was truly your opinion on the game (even though many of your claims are demonstrably false) then give the game a low score. This "give it a high score but do nothing but complain during the actual review" is the kind of thing I expect from gamefaqs user reviews, not escapist reviews that people are payed to produce.

I know I may seem harsh, I have loved poking fun at you guys over this whole thing (and the Escapists staff childish reaction and constant use of the "people just mad because it didn't get a perfect score" strawman argument) but I honestly believe that when you are being payed to play video games and write short articles that should take you no longer than an hour to write, you should show some level of professionalism or at least quality.

This is kind of how your review seemed to me.

"Burnout Revenge

The game was repulsive and forced the player to drive dangerously to complete the game without offering a valid reason. On top of this, everything in the game is green and I'm so sick of green since I have a family and I found it hard to look at it. Literally everything in the game is green or some shade of green. I can't think of a single positive thing to say about this game, and I have barely gotten into the actual gameplay.

4 out of 5 stars"

No, people are not "mad because of the score" because as people keep saying, it's a high score. People are annoyed because of the complete misrepresentation of the game and how those falsities are now constantly quoted by people that have never played the game as a reason that it's a terrible game.

There are plenty of real reasons to dislike the game, why rely on problems that don't even exist in the game? You keep saying you were forced to do horrible things without an explanation, that's simply not true unless you chose to skip the cutscenes. I'm sorry, but it's not the game's fault that you skipped cutscenes. That's the kind of "review" I remember seeing on "judgement day" on G4 back in the day.

The "I have a family now, I don't enjoy this" stuff was really obnoxious. You are implying (almost explicitly stating) that the only people that would enjoy this game are kids or losers without a significant other in their life.

geizr:
I had been hearing about this review of GTA V. This is my first time going through it just to see what the fuss is about. If the review is to be believed (I've never played any of the GTA series and have no inclination to start), it sounds like GTA V is a well-executed from the point of view of just being a compilation of coded software. However, from the point of view of being a coherent, sensible creative work, it's a complete dismal failure with no real purpose to its existence. That's the impression that I'm getting.

Although, as I said, I've never played any of the GTA games and have no inclination; so, take my opinion with some significant salt.

And this is what bugs me, people that never played the game taking this review on faith.

Fact is, it is his opinion and he is welcome to it but he states things that as I have said before are demonstrably false.

Every "horrible act" is given context and Tito completely ignores the fact that the torture scenes was quite obviously meant to be disturbing. That's what really gets me annoyed, people single this game out as "glorifying torture" because they had the reaction that was intended by the devs but not a single one of those people complained about torture in Splinter cell or COD because the game doesn't make it disturbing because those games are trying to present torture as a noble and necessary act of a hero.

It makes me genuinely sad that people like this admit to not playing the game but post their opinion of how much of a failure the story is based on nothing more than this review which completely misrepresents the game.

Carpenter:

geizr:
I had been hearing about this review of GTA V. This is my first time going through it just to see what the fuss is about. If the review is to be believed (I've never played any of the GTA series and have no inclination to start), it sounds like GTA V is a well-executed from the point of view of just being a compilation of coded software. However, from the point of view of being a coherent, sensible creative work, it's a complete dismal failure with no real purpose to its existence. That's the impression that I'm getting.

Although, as I said, I've never played any of the GTA games and have no inclination; so, take my opinion with some significant salt.

And this is what bugs me, people that never played the game taking this review on faith.

Fact is, it is his opinion and he is welcome to it but he states things that as I have said before are demonstrably false.

Every "horrible act" is given context and Tito completely ignores the fact that the torture scenes was quite obviously meant to be disturbing. That's what really gets me annoyed, people single this game out as "glorifying torture" because they had the reaction that was intended by the devs but not a single one of those people complained about torture in Splinter cell or COD because the game doesn't make it disturbing because those games are trying to present torture as a noble and necessary act of a hero.

It makes me genuinely sad that people like this admit to not playing the game but post their opinion of how much of a failure the story is based on nothing more than this review which completely misrepresents the game.

Calm down. First, at the very end of my post, I did say to take my opinion with a significant amount of salt, meaning one should not place a lot of weight on it, since I have never played the game. Second, I said it was my impression of the review, meaning I'm only stating what my interpretation of the review is, not whether I believe the review. In fact, I clearly state "If the review is to believed...", meaning if you do believe the review, not saying specifically whether I do or whether others should. Third, if someone has not played the game, what else are they going to have to go by except the opinions of others who have played the game (the reviewer counts as one having played the game, since he must do so to review the game)? Some such opinions are going to be positive and others are going to be negative. Regardless, I'm certainly not going to go out and drop $60 just to verify and validate the review. Sure, I could rent the game on Gamefly or elsewhere, but then I have to spend time going through it, time that could be spent on other games or other activities. If the game is not piquing my interest, regardless of the review (which, by the way, I clearly stated), why would I want to invest in it in any way just to verify a review?

You play the game and enjoy it. That's great; continue on with that, and don't give a flying wet-noodle what anyone else thinks on it. You should not let other's opinion of a game you enjoy take away from your ability to enjoy the game; otherwise, it means, deep down, you're not as comfortable with your game selection as you would like to believe and need external affirmation to justify yourself. You're not being comfortable in your own skin. Some people will like the game, and some people will hate the game; however, both sides will report their opinion based on such. Just because you like a game does not mean everyone else has to, as well.

As an example, I positively enjoyed Final Fantasy XIII, have played completely through it three times now (80+ hours worth each time). Yet, try to find a favorable opinion of the game on the Internet. You may find some, but you'll find a lot of negative. But, those negative opinions do not matter one iota to my enjoyment of the game.

geizr:

Carpenter:

geizr:
I had been hearing about this review of GTA V. This is my first time going through it just to see what the fuss is about. If the review is to be believed (I've never played any of the GTA series and have no inclination to start), it sounds like GTA V is a well-executed from the point of view of just being a compilation of coded software. However, from the point of view of being a coherent, sensible creative work, it's a complete dismal failure with no real purpose to its existence. That's the impression that I'm getting.

Although, as I said, I've never played any of the GTA games and have no inclination; so, take my opinion with some significant salt.

And this is what bugs me, people that never played the game taking this review on faith.

Fact is, it is his opinion and he is welcome to it but he states things that as I have said before are demonstrably false.

Every "horrible act" is given context and Tito completely ignores the fact that the torture scenes was quite obviously meant to be disturbing. That's what really gets me annoyed, people single this game out as "glorifying torture" because they had the reaction that was intended by the devs but not a single one of those people complained about torture in Splinter cell or COD because the game doesn't make it disturbing because those games are trying to present torture as a noble and necessary act of a hero.

It makes me genuinely sad that people like this admit to not playing the game but post their opinion of how much of a failure the story is based on nothing more than this review which completely misrepresents the game.

Calm down. First, at the very end of my post, I did say to take my opinion with a significant amount of salt, meaning one should not place a lot of weight on it, since I have never played the game. Second, I said it was my impression of the review, meaning I'm only stating what my interpretation of the review is, not whether I believe the review. In fact, I clearly state "If the review is to believed...", meaning if you do believe the review, not saying specifically whether I do or whether others should. Third, if someone has not played the game, what else are they going to have to go by except the opinions of others who have played the game (the reviewer counts as one having played the game, since he must do so to review the game)? Some such opinions are going to be positive and others are going to be negative. Regardless, I'm certainly not going to go out and drop $60 just to verify and validate the review. Sure, I could rent the game on Gamefly or elsewhere, but then I have to spend time going through it, time that could be spent on other games or other activities. If the game is not piquing my interest, regardless of the review (which, by the way, I clearly stated), why would I want to invest in it in any way just to verify a review?

You play the game and enjoy it. That's great; continue on with that, and don't give a flying wet-noodle what anyone else thinks on it. You should not let other's opinion of a game you enjoy take away from your ability to enjoy the game; otherwise, it means, deep down, you're not as comfortable with your game selection as you would like to believe and need external affirmation to justify yourself. You're not being comfortable in your own skin. Some people will like the game, and some people will hate the game; however, both sides will report their opinion based on such. Just because you like a game does not mean everyone else has to, as well.

As an example, I positively enjoyed Final Fantasy XIII, have played completely through it three times now (80+ hours worth each time). Yet, try to find a favorable opinion of the game on the Internet. You may find some, but you'll find a lot of negative. But, those negative opinions do not matter one iota to my enjoyment of the game.

If you feel the need to discuss this, can you at least be mature about it?
Starting with "calm down" (implying that I was angry or excited) is a pretty overused troll tactic. Not saying you are a troll, I only bring it up because it's just presumptuous and rude.

Did you read my post? You are asking questions that I already answered with my comments earlier. Yes if you have never played the game all you have to go on is the opinions of others, that's why it bugs me when people that are payed to play video games and give their opinions make claims about a game that are demonstrably false. It would be no different than reviewing Fable and claiming that it delivered on every single promise made in development. It's misleading and unprofessional.

You are asking why you would want to buy the game if you have no interest in it. I don't know, why would you? Why are you asking me that? I never suggested you buy the game if you have no interest. On that note, if you have absolutely no interest, why are you here sharing your opinion on the game you have not played?

Yes I enjoy the game, if you think this is me complaining about an opinion I don't agree with then maybe you just skimmed my comment. This is about a person being given money to review a game and then making claims that are demonstrably false. The things he claims are not matters of opinion, such as his claim that the Life invader mission is given no context and no reason and that you are not told what you are doing until it happens. Every one of those claims is false.

I could just as easily say that if you are not interested in the game you shouldn't care what my opinion of the review is. You are here presenting your opinion, accept that I am doing the same.
The opinions of others is not detracting from my enjoyment of the game, your comments seem pretty in line with the community's behavior right now in defending the escapist, constant strawman arguments. I am not claiming that everyone or anyone has to enjoy a game I enjoy, as I have made clear several times this is about a person who is payed to review a game making false claims about that game.

Carpenter:

If you feel the need to discuss this, can you at least be mature about it?
Starting with "calm down" (implying that I was angry or excited) is a pretty overused troll tactic. Not saying you are a troll, I only bring it up because it's just presumptuous and rude.

Yes, you did sound quite angry to me, especially with the opening line about how it bugs you so much and much of your follow-on text sounded like a response in irritation. You quite explicitly included me in a group that is a source of your current irritation, therefore, it seemed quite reasonable to me to presume you were angry in your post. It is not rude or presumptuous if the person responding has reason to believe that you may be a bit peeved over the issue. Trying to imply that I'm a troll doesn't help. Saying that someone is doing something is indicative of them being X but you're not calling them X is a bit cowardly, in my opinion. Either you believe I'm being a troll or not. If you believe I'm being a troll, then just say so, but if you don't actually believe I'm being a troll, then please don't use phrasing that sounds like an indirect accusation (and, yes, I'm actually a bit irritated by this). Further, just because someone doesn't have agreement with you or make counterpoints against your post doesn't mean that they are engaging in trollish behavior. It simply means they disagree.

Carpenter:

Did you read my post? You are asking questions that I already answered with my comments earlier. Yes if you have never played the game all you have to go on is the opinions of others, that's why it bugs me when people that are payed to play video games and give their opinions make claims about a game that are demonstrably false. It would be no different than reviewing Fable and claiming that it delivered on every single promise made in development. It's misleading and unprofessional.

Yes, I read your post, the one that quoted me and directly included me as one of a select group that is a source of irritation for you concerning this game.

Greg Tito is not the only one who has the opinion that the story is pointless and unmotivated. One poster in this forum who has also played the game echoes the same opinion as Greg Tito; this person right here:

TheMoD1234:
Wow didn't think I'd find a review like this one on the internet .. This is basically what I've been thinking most of the time while playing it ! It's just so sinister . I mean GTA 4 wasn't very lighthearted either, but GTA 5 is different .. I guess soulless is the word I'm looking for . Noone really has any believable emotional bonds to anyone else . Come to think of it Max Payne 3 had a very bleak and depressing feel to it aswell . Almost makes me think Dan Houser might be going through some rough times and it influences his writing or something

So, the claims are not necessarily demonstrably false, and I suspect he is not the only person that holds such an opinion. Just because others don't agree with your opinion doesn't necessarily make them factually wrong.

Carpenter:

You are asking why you would want to buy the game if you have no interest in it. I don't know, why would you? Why are you asking me that? I never suggested you buy the game if you have no interest. On that note, if you have absolutely no interest, why are you here sharing your opinion on the game you have not played?

You specifically take exception to someone reciting the opinion of another, specifically a game reviewer, when the person reciting the review has not themselves played the game. In that sense, you are asking the person reciting the review to play the game first before they are allowed to weigh in on the game. I did not recite the review but offered my interpretation of the review. I predicated that interpretation with "If the review is to be believed..." in an attempt to show that I was not taking a stance one way or the other on the veracity of the review. I admit that this may not have been sufficient to impress that onto the reader; never the less, that was the intent.

Carpenter:

Yes I enjoy the game, if you think this is me complaining about an opinion I don't agree with then maybe you just skimmed my comment. This is about a person being given money to review a game and then making claims that are demonstrably false. The things he claims are not matters of opinion, such as his claim that the Life invader mission is given no context and no reason and that you are not told what you are doing until it happens. Every one of those claims is false.

No, I did not skim your post. It sounded quite clear that you did not agree with the review, and you do not agree with someone giving an interpretation of the review. In fact, the very statement from you that I have quoted above is a disagreement.

Carpenter:

I could just as easily say that if you are not interested in the game you shouldn't care what my opinion of the review is. You are here presenting your opinion, accept that I am doing the same.

I don't care what your opinion of the review is. I care that you included me as belonging to a group that is causing you irritation. Further, you included me in that group on the basis of what I perceived as a misunderstanding of the nature and intent of my post. I responded to your opinion to clarify to you the nature and intent of my post so as not to be included in such group. Even further, the only reason I'm responding now is because in the very beginning of your last post you make what I perceive as a back-hand accusation to call me a troll.

Carpenter:

The opinions of others is not detracting from my enjoyment of the game, your comments seem pretty in line with the community's behavior right now in defending the escapist, constant strawman arguments. I am not claiming that everyone or anyone has to enjoy a game I enjoy, as I have made clear several times this is about a person who is payed to review a game making false claims about that game.

Yet, you seem quite bothered by these "false claims", as you call them, concerning the game and seeing the need to defend the game from them.

There is no way I can argue with you on the veracity of any claims one way or the other, either yours or Greg Tito's, as I have not played the game myself. I did not take Greg Tito's review on faith because I know better than just go by the word of a single reviewer (goodness knows if I did that with Yahtzee's reviews, I'd probably never play a single game ever again). But, that is not the intent of what I was trying to do in my post. In my post, I was only trying to present my own interpretation and distillation of Greg's review in an effect to understand the conflict people were having, nothing more, nothing less. If you have a problem with his review, that's fine, but don't include me as one who is taking the review on faith that it is the gospel truth concerning the game and thus being one contributing to your irritation. Also, I don't like being called a troll, not even indirectly or with language that has partial implications to the effect. (BTW, if this all sounds angry to you, it's because I actually am, to a small degree.)

geizr:

Carpenter:

If you feel the need to discuss this, can you at least be mature about it?
Starting with "calm down" (implying that I was angry or excited) is a pretty overused troll tactic. Not saying you are a troll, I only bring it up because it's just presumptuous and rude.

Yes, you did sound quite angry to me, especially with the opening line about how it bugs you so much and much of your follow-on text sounded like a response in irritation. You quite explicitly included me in a group that is a source of your current irritation, therefore, it seemed quite reasonable to me to presume you were angry in your post. It is not rude or presumptuous if the person responding has reason to believe that you may be a bit peeved over the issue. Trying to imply that I'm a troll doesn't help. Saying that someone is doing something is indicative of them being X but you're not calling them X is a bit cowardly, in my opinion. Either you believe I'm being a troll or not. If you believe I'm being a troll, then just say so, but if you don't actually believe I'm being a troll, then please don't use phrasing that sounds like an indirect accusation (and, yes, I'm actually a bit irritated by this). Further, just because someone doesn't have agreement with you or make counterpoints against your post doesn't mean that they are engaging in trollish behavior. It simply means they disagree.

Carpenter:

Did you read my post? You are asking questions that I already answered with my comments earlier. Yes if you have never played the game all you have to go on is the opinions of others, that's why it bugs me when people that are payed to play video games and give their opinions make claims about a game that are demonstrably false. It would be no different than reviewing Fable and claiming that it delivered on every single promise made in development. It's misleading and unprofessional.

Yes, I read your post, the one that quoted me and directly included me as one of a select group that is a source of irritation for you concerning this game.

Greg Tito is not the only one who has the opinion that the story is pointless and unmotivated. One poster in this forum who has also played the game echoes the same opinion as Greg Tito; this person right here:

TheMoD1234:
Wow didn't think I'd find a review like this one on the internet .. This is basically what I've been thinking most of the time while playing it ! It's just so sinister . I mean GTA 4 wasn't very lighthearted either, but GTA 5 is different .. I guess soulless is the word I'm looking for . Noone really has any believable emotional bonds to anyone else . Come to think of it Max Payne 3 had a very bleak and depressing feel to it aswell . Almost makes me think Dan Houser might be going through some rough times and it influences his writing or something

So, the claims are not necessarily demonstrably false, and I suspect he is not the only person that holds such an opinion. Just because others don't agree with your opinion doesn't necessarily make them factually wrong.

Carpenter:

You are asking why you would want to buy the game if you have no interest in it. I don't know, why would you? Why are you asking me that? I never suggested you buy the game if you have no interest. On that note, if you have absolutely no interest, why are you here sharing your opinion on the game you have not played?

You specifically take exception to someone reciting the opinion of another, specifically a game reviewer, when the person reciting the review has not themselves played the game. In that sense, you are asking the person reciting the review to play the game first before they are allowed to weigh in on the game. I did not recite the review but offered my interpretation of the review. I predicated that interpretation with "If the review is to be believed..." in an attempt to show that I was not taking a stance one way or the other on the veracity of the review. I admit that this may not have been sufficient to impress that onto the reader; never the less, that was the intent.

Carpenter:

Yes I enjoy the game, if you think this is me complaining about an opinion I don't agree with then maybe you just skimmed my comment. This is about a person being given money to review a game and then making claims that are demonstrably false. The things he claims are not matters of opinion, such as his claim that the Life invader mission is given no context and no reason and that you are not told what you are doing until it happens. Every one of those claims is false.

No, I did not skim your post. It sounded quite clear that you did not agree with the review, and you do not agree with someone giving an interpretation of the review. In fact, the very statement from you that I have quoted above is a disagreement.

Carpenter:

I could just as easily say that if you are not interested in the game you shouldn't care what my opinion of the review is. You are here presenting your opinion, accept that I am doing the same.

I don't care what your opinion of the review is. I care that you included me as belonging to a group that is causing you irritation. Further, you included me in that group on the basis of what I perceived as a misunderstanding of the nature and intent of my post. I responded to your opinion to clarify to you the nature and intent of my post so as not to be included in such group. Even further, the only reason I'm responding now is because in the very beginning of your last post you make what I perceive as a back-hand accusation to call me a troll.

Carpenter:

The opinions of others is not detracting from my enjoyment of the game, your comments seem pretty in line with the community's behavior right now in defending the escapist, constant strawman arguments. I am not claiming that everyone or anyone has to enjoy a game I enjoy, as I have made clear several times this is about a person who is payed to review a game making false claims about that game.

Yet, you seem quite bothered by these "false claims", as you call them, concerning the game and seeing the need to defend the game from them.

There is no way I can argue with you on the veracity of any claims one way or the other, either yours or Greg Tito's, as I have not played the game myself. I did not take Greg Tito's review on faith because I know better than just go by the word of a single reviewer (goodness knows if I did that with Yahtzee's reviews, I'd probably never play a single game ever again). But, that is not the intent of what I was trying to do in my post. In my post, I was only trying to present my own interpretation and distillation of Greg's review in an effect to understand the conflict people were having, nothing more, nothing less. If you have a problem with his review, that's fine, but don't include me as one who is taking the review on faith that it is the gospel truth concerning the game and thus being one contributing to your irritation. Also, I don't like being called a troll, not even indirectly or with language that has partial implications to the effect. (BTW, if this all sounds angry to you, it's because I actually am, to a small degree.)

It didn't "sound angry" because there's no sound involved. The only thing you hear when reading this is the tone of your own internal voice reading it. If that was an angry tone, perhaps you are angry.

I started with "it bugs me" and if you had read through the post you would realize that the thing "bugging me" that I refer to is not you or anything you did but the fact that people rely on reviews like this to know what a game is like before wasting 60 bucks, yet the people being payed to produce these reviews don't feel the need to be professional about it.

You were not "the source of my irritation" and that would be obvious if you read the comment before replying. I did not imply that you were a troll, again if you had finished reading instead of skimming you would have read the "I don't think you are a troll" comment that I gave immediately after I said the "calm down" thing is a common troll tactic. I pointed it out because I thought maybe you would understand that those types of comments can make these conversations turn ugly, hence why people that feed off that stuff use those comments.

So again you do the "just because people disagree with you" thing as if I attacked you. I was presenting my opinion, you were presenting yours. There's no reason to play the victim here.

If you want to discuss this, I'm open to it, but there's no need to put yourself on the cross. You're not a victim here, I'm not attacking you. We are two people with a conflicting opinion on a review posted online. Let's not try to make more of this than there really is.

Several times in your post you discredit what I said with "just because people disagree with you" as if that has anything to do with what I am saying. Yes the things said in the review are demonstrably false. I gave you a good example, Tito claims the life invader mission doesn't tell you what you are going to do, Lester explicitly states before the mission that he will receive a call and that when he answers it the device will detonate. He says that no reason is ever given for the mission, Lester (before the mission) lists what he considers good reasons to kill the man (invasion of privacy and whatnot, funny coming from him) but of course after the mission you are also given the real reason (stock price manipulation) so yes, the claims Tito makes are not matters of opinion but demonstrably false.

If a person says that Samuel Jackson is a bad actor in the Man of Steel movie, that person is not stating an opinion, they are making a statement that is false because Samuel Jackson is not in the movie at all.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say? If you have nothing to defend this review other than personal attacks and strawman arguments, I really don't see this going anywhere. I would love to see an actual response other than "oh you just hate everyone that has a different opinion than you"

Carpenter:

It didn't "sound angry" because there's no sound involved. The only thing you hear when reading this is the tone of your own internal voice reading it. If that was an angry tone, perhaps you are angry.

Okay, that little twisting of words that you're doing right there gives me good reason to end this conversation right here. You know precisely what I meant by "sounds". Don't try this silly brow-beating tactic to win an argument. I've seen it too many times, and I won't tolerate having discussion with someone who is going to do that. It's base and repulsive.

Carpenter:

I started with "it bugs me" and if you had read through the post you would realize that the thing "bugging me" that I refer to is not you or anything you did but the fact that people rely on reviews like this to know what a game is like before wasting 60 bucks, yet the people being payed to produce these reviews don't feel the need to be professional about it.

You were not "the source of my irritation" and that would be obvious if you read the comment before replying. I did not imply that you were a troll, again if you had finished reading instead of skimming you would have read the "I don't think you are a troll" comment that I gave immediately after I said the "calm down" thing is a common troll tactic. I pointed it out because I thought maybe you would understand that those types of comments can make these conversations turn ugly, hence why people that feed off that stuff use those comments.

Let me quote your words here:

Carpenter:
It makes me genuinely sad that people like this admit to not playing the game but post their opinion of how much of a failure the story is based on nothing more than this review which completely misrepresents the game.

You said this using me as a specific example. You specifically included me in the group with which you had issues. My first response was an attempt to clarify that I specifically was not agreeing or disagreeing with the review. I was only interpreting it for my own understanding and then echoing that interpretation. But you seem to want to persist in ignoring that explicit statement to make claim that I'm defending the review when I am not nor have I ever been. As I explicitly stated in my second post, my first post was merely an interpretation in order to understand the conflict people are having with Greg Tito's review. Nowhere do I say that I agree or disagree with the review because I have no basis to do so.

Carpenter:

So again you do the "just because people disagree with you" thing as if I attacked you. I was presenting my opinion, you were presenting yours. There's no reason to play the victim here.

In your subsequent posts to me, you have made the accusation that I am only skimming your posts. You have made the implication that I agree with the review. In your very first line of your second response to me, you say to me

Carpenter:

If you feel the need to discuss this, can you at least be mature about it?

You said this, as near as I can tell, in response to the "Calm down" that I had in my post. I'm not sure how you get someone saying "calm down" as a sign of not being sufficiently mature. Where in that post did I actually in any way speak in a tone and manner that was immature? I'd really like to know, because as far as I could tell, I was merely trying to explain the true nature of my post in an attempt to clear up any misinterpretation I perceived you may have been having. So, you have also accused me of being immature.

So we have three things of which you have directly accused me, two of which I explicitly stated were not the case. Yet, you persist to accuse me of them. Now we compound this with an accusation of immature, and, yet, you now have the gall to say I am not some how being targeted by you? These direct accusations are target, especially because they have persisted even when I explained to you these are not things I'm doing. I'm most especially hurt by the accusation that I'm only skimming your posts when you are clearly not reading mine, or only reading into it what you want to read.

Carpenter:

If you want to discuss this, I'm open to it, but there's no need to put yourself on the cross. You're not a victim here, I'm not attacking you. We are two people with a conflicting opinion on a review posted online. Let's not try to make more of this than there really is.

What I posted was an interpretation of the review, not an agreement or disagreement with the review. I have stated this 2-3 times now. Yet, you keep persisting in this idea that I agree with the review. Get this through the concrete (I'm getting really annoyed with this insistence of yours in the face of me repeatedly explaining that such is not the case): I have no agreement or disagreement with the review. I merely stated an interpretation in an effort to understand the conflict people were having with the review. More clearly, I wanted to understand how badly the review was panning the game such to cause some people to rebel against it. But, I, myself, am not taking any particular side. If you want to keep insisting that I'm agreeing with the review, then we are done here, because you are clearly just not listening.

Carpenter:

Several times in your post you discredit what I said with "just because people disagree with you" as if that has anything to do with what I am saying. Yes the things said in the review are demonstrably false. I gave you a good example, Tito claims the life invader mission doesn't tell you what you are going to do, Lester explicitly states before the mission that he will receive a call and that when he answers it the device will detonate. He says that no reason is ever given for the mission, Lester (before the mission) lists what he considers good reasons to kill the man (invasion of privacy and whatnot, funny coming from him) but of course after the mission you are also given the real reason (stock price manipulation) so yes, the claims Tito makes are not matters of opinion but demonstrably false.

I gave you an example of another poster in this thread who actually has played the game and actually does agree with the review as an example of how two people can look at the some thing and still come to different conclusions regarding the matter. One person may have found it sufficiently motivated while another person did not. But these are simply two different opinions of the same thing.

Carpenter:

Do you understand what I'm trying to say? If you have nothing to defend this review other than personal attacks and strawman arguments, I really don't see this going anywhere. I would love to see an actual response other than "oh you just hate everyone that has a different opinion than you"

I have been understanding quite well what you have been saying, and I have been reading through your posts quite thoroughly. However, I feel that you are not reading my posts with the same care, nor are you understanding what I'm saying. So, let me spell it out to you (for the third or fourth time): 1) I am not trying to defend this review as I have never taken a position to agree or disagree with it (how can I when I haven't played the game?). 2) My first post was not an agreement with the review; it was only an interpretation of the review in an attempt to understand the conflict people have been having with it.

I'm getting really annoyed with these accusations you're making of me that have no proper foundation. If anything, you're the one that is guilty of the very things you of which you are accusing me (with the exception of agreeing with the review, because you obviously disagree with it), and trying to twist words, as you do at the very beginning of your post, is one of my biggest peeves. Doing stuff like that, to me, sounds like someone just trying to win an argument. I'm going to tell you right now, you're very close to becoming the second person on these forums I have ever put on ignore. I don't like these accusations, and I don't like this continued insistence that I'm agreeing with the review when I explicitly state, multiple times now, that I have made no agreement or disagreement with it, only an interpretation in an effort to understand that conflict people are having with the review.

Even I hold little weight to my own statement in my original post, which is precisely why I said to take it with a significant amount of salt. It is an interpretation which I regard as having a significant amount of error and, hence, can not be wholly relied upon. I have tried to explain this, but I feel like I'm just not getting through. Instead, I'm getting these accusations and an insistent that I'm somehow defending the review. If there was any sense of defending made, it was only to say that there exist people who have played the game and do agree with the review, but I categorically exclude myself from any group that either agrees or disagrees with the review. This point was made only to emphasize that your own statements so far could be considered nothing more than just an opposing opinion.

Really? More misrepresentation of what I was saying.

It seems people that try to defend this review can rely on nothing but strawman arguments. I don't really see a point in carrying on a conversation with you if you're going to cherry pick the parts of my posts you choose to respond to while ignoring the overall point.

I have already explained that he says things that are demonstrably false. You have provided no argument to the contrary and instead want to argue that "I was mad" as if that's what's important.

If you haven't played and have no interest in the game, why are you spending so much time on it? Why share your opinion on the story while admitting that you know nothing about it?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here