Grand Theft Auto 5 Review - People Suck

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

lacktheknack:
Mein Gott, the tide of New-Account Rage is ludicrous! D:

You predicted that well.

Where did you get your crystal ball from? I want one...

TopazFusion:

lacktheknack:
Mein Gott, the tide of New-Account Rage is ludicrous! D:

You predicted that well.

Where did you get your crystal ball from? I want one...

History has a bad habit of repeating itself. Especially when someone have an opinion that lines up with everyone else.

TopazFusion:

lacktheknack:
Mein Gott, the tide of New-Account Rage is ludicrous! D:

You predicted that well.

Where did you get your crystal ball from? I want one...

I built my own during the White Guy Defense Force and "YAHTZEE WAS OFFENSIVE" threads.

At least it's a better review than I would have given. (And sorry for the rage shitstorm that follows what I write here)

My review:
Good:
-
Bad:
- Unplayable, does not work on my gaming device. No PC version, no sale.

0/10

sky14kemea:

Andy Shandy:
And a tough week for the mods gets even harder. XD

Are you kidding, it's like Christmas for us!

Wait no, what's the opposite of Christmas? Uhhhh... It's like Armageddon! I like to think I'm the Bruce Willis of the Mod team, though obviously that means I'm probably going to die in a heroic ball of flames in a little while... =[

Our universe is doomed!
DOOOOOMED!

OT: Reviews are subjective personal opinions. Boo hoo, a reviewer didn't like a game that you did, does that affect your enjoyment of the game? No. Does it make any difference to your life? No.

Seriously, if I got annoyed at every review that wasn't up to my expectations then is spend half my time shouting at MovieBob because I really like New Star Trek and Man of Steel.
It's one persons opinions, get over it.

I'm sure it's a fine game. I don't really care what the reviewer says about the script. It sounds less flawed than the previous games in that they offered you a false dichotomy to help you deal with what you are doing, this one doesn't. I find it kind of amusing that the game is about a bunch of psychopaths and the people with an over developed sense of empathy are having a problem with it... that is actually really fantastic as far as writing is concerned. In previous games you played mostly murderous psychopaths but it was covered with a false sense of morality that the so called state of "being painted into a corner" brings out.

Don't get me wrong, I am going to wait to see if a PC version actually comes out at all. The idea of playing a bigger city than ever on hardware that is really well beyond it's productive years doesn't sound like a good idea to me. And then to see if they did as horrible a port job as they did with GTA4.

Fireprufe15:
At least it's a better review than I would have given. (And sorry for the rage shitstorm that follows what I write here)

My review:
Good:
-
Bad:
- Unplayable, does not work on my gaming device. No PC version, no sale.

0/10

I don't know man. I'd argue that the PC version is definitely the best version.

Flamezdudes:
"Main selling point of GTA is playing as a massive sociopath."

"Waaaahhhhh the game made me play as a massive sociopath! :( "

For fuck sake, this is GTA. That is not a valid complaint.

I don't think you understand what the words 'valid complaint' mean.

In fact a perfectly good example of a valid complaint about GTA V is - "I enjoyed this game's story and writing less because I had no reason to care on any level about the main characters in it."

A complaint about GTA V that is not valid would be - "I enjoyed this game less because there were neither guns nor cars in it, in fact, the closest thing I could do to committing a crime was jaywalking, which was a bit pointless with no cars around."

I'll give you a few moments to guess what isn't valid about that complaint before I let you click on this very patronising spoiler button.

aye, the idea of a admirable psychopath, speaks to me of wanting to have one's cake and eat it too.

i guess they pulled it off pretty well with Niko, but i definitely think there is something to be said for a reprehensible main character, if only for the sake of escaping that old video game routine of heroes and anti-heroes

Okay.

I've railed against score inflation more than most.

I would have had no problem with this score in principle.

BUT.

When the same person that gave fucking Dragon Age 2 100% gives a GTA game 3.5/5 because, SHOCK GASP, you play as CRIMINALS IN A FUCKING GRAND THEFT AUTO GAME, then I don't even know HOW to react.

What the fuck is this.

Have you even heard of this series before?

sky14kemea:

Andy Shandy:
And a tough week for the mods gets even harder. XD

Are you kidding, it's like Christmas for us!

Wait no, what's the opposite of Christmas? Uhhhh... It's like Armageddon! I like to think I'm the Bruce Willis of the Mod team, though obviously that means I'm probably going to die in a heroic ball of flames in a little while... =

So who's Liv Tyler?

Marter?
Topaz?
TimeLord?
Maddawg?

...It's Maddawg, isn't it?

bringer of illumination:
Okay.

I've railed against score inflation more than most.

I would have had no problem with this score in principle.

BUT.

When the same person that gave fucking Dragon Age 2 100% gives a GTA game 3.5/5 because, SHOCK GASP, you play as CRIMINALS IN A FUCKING GRAND THEFT AUTO GAME, then I don't even know HOW to react.

What the fuck is this.

Have you even heard of this series before?

He liked DA2, and did not like GTAV as much. And then he listed the reason WHY he didn't enjoy it as much. That's all he needs to account for the difference in score.

vini77:
Wow, so let me get this straight. The 3 mass murdering psychopathic criminal protagonists aren't likeable enough? That's your criticism of the game. This must be that new account rage someone bought up, because this review is terrible. Completely misses the point.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/grand-theft-auto-v/critic-reviews

Game currently has 99/100 on Metacritic, and this lazy review isn't going to change the fact that it's the best game of this generation. After playing it for over 4 days, I can safely say that.

Now I haven't played the game yet, and I think when I do I'm going to enjoy it very much. BUT don't you think saying that any criticism based on the characters is invalid, kind of defeats all the hard work Rockstar have been putting into characterisation and plot with their recent games? Criticising, I dunno, League of Legends for having un-likeable characters would be invalid, because characterisation is completely insignificant in that game. But in a game series that recently has become so focused on plot and character, it's completely valid for that to be a criticism of the game.

Nice review which goes a long way to giving a consumer what they need; an idea of what to expect. Although it does somewhat smack of trying to find something to criticise it for.

lacktheknack:
Bang snip bang

You may be this thread's Bear Jew. I think there's someone else you need to be introduced to.

edit: you beat me to it!

Teoes:

lacktheknack:
Bang snip bang

You may be this thread's Bear Jew. I think there's someone else you need to be introduced to.

I never saw Inglorious Basterds. Is being the Bear Jew a good thing, or a bad thing?

Greg Tito:
Grand Theft Auto V Review - People Suck

You can't deny the game's achievements, but the writing will push you away.

Read Full Article

Dragon Age 2 is a 5/5, 100% score.

And you give this a 7/10.

Not gonna lie, I smell a rat bro.

Greg Tito:
quoted for attention!

Hey Greg, quick question: what ever happened to the video reviews? I noticed you guys haven't been doing those anymore and I didn't hear anything else about it. What gives?

I came into this thread a happy and joyful bunny, yet all these new accounts made purely for the purpose of unleashing trucktons of melted rage and conformity have shattered that.
Thanks guys.
It's a valid complaint, and I was hoping that someone would give this unoriginal and frankly dull game something other than "MASTERPIECE BUY IT NOW AND WE GET MONEY ITS GOOD YEAH".

Urgh.

I'ma go make me some tea now.

bringer of illumination:
Okay.

I've railed against score inflation more than most.

I would have had no problem with this score in principle.

BUT.

When the same person that gave fucking Dragon Age 2 100% gives a GTA game 3.5/5 because, SHOCK GASP, you play as CRIMINALS IN A FUCKING GRAND THEFT AUTO GAME, then I don't even know HOW to react.

What the fuck is this.

Have you even heard of this series before?

He gave DA2 100%, Seriously who the hell does that? Does this guy even play the games or just throw darts at a board and pick the outcome?

I'd rather play as complete assholes rather than whatever the hell Niko Bellic was. I'm somewhat looking forward to this, but I have to know what my friends think of it first. After all, GTAIV has a 98 on metacritic despite being extremely repetitive, lacking content compared to previous games, and having some of the worst mechanics I've seen this generation. Rockstar could release a game like Amy and reviewers would still eat it up

Oh Grand Theft Auto came out already?
I didn't even notice.

Anyway, that was an interesting review. I can think of instances where bad characters ruined the over all experience of a piece a media for me so I can understand where you are coming from. I especially don't like it when such characters are praised and are never "punished" their immoral deeds.

Still, I can't help but be morbidly curious about just how awful these characters are.

Yosharian:
Dragon Age 2 is a 5/5, 100% score.

And you give this a 7/10.

Not gonna lie, I smell a rat bro.

Anthadlas Babyeater:
He gave DA2 100%, Seriously who the hell does that? Does this guy even play the games or just throw darts at a board and pick the outcome?

I will continue to do this as many times as I need to to get the bleeding point across! >:(

You cant base an entire review on personal preferences, that way if the reviewer of this site for this game was another one we would get an all together diferent opinion/score. One thing is saying that the minigames are just fluff, the game has technical issues or the story is dumb (if trying to be smart) and another thing is that the main characters arent the type of protagonists that you like.

There are a lot of things that I dont like but respect and see why people like it and its good, as a professional reviewer there is a certain responsability to not let you personal view to get that much in the way (it can get but make it clear that it is a personal view). Moviebob fails a lot of times on that too and the Gamespot review goes all out with political views and shit, thats even worse.

I really dont agree with the 10/10 being handled out there but most real issues we seem to get with GTA V are framerate drops and pop-ins. If the game managed to be all it wanted to be (and it wanted a lot) with only those flaws I think it deserves to be a bit more then "average".

"You can only embody a vicious psychopath a short time before it becomes boring, at best, and soul-crushing, at worst.
Forcing players to murder people, not in a gamey "I killed you to complete a goal" way that defines this medium, but in a terrorizing and demeaning way, is not what will make videogames great."

why not? why is it comparatively boring to have an actual, human emotional reaction(negative or otherwise) to doing bad things when compared to killing without context like in most other games?

Maybe thats the perfect way to make video games great

lacktheknack:

Yosharian:
Dragon Age 2 is a 5/5, 100% score.

And you give this a 7/10.

Not gonna lie, I smell a rat bro.

Anthadlas Babyeater:
He gave DA2 100%, Seriously who the hell does that? Does this guy even play the games or just throw darts at a board and pick the outcome?

I will continue to do this as many times as I need to to get the bleeding point across! >:(

It's a valid point if the reviewer is clearly insane

Thought progression of most gamers at this point:

1. Damn. GTA5's aggregate on metacritic is pretty sick. Maybe it will somehow live up to the hype.

2. Wow, there's actually a dissenting opinion in there. One site gave it a mixed review. Wonder why...

3. Never mind, it's just The Escapist. Moving on as if nothing happened.

Content here is starting to cross over from flame-baiting to click-baiting. I think I'll resume my holiday until you all think of something besides kicking hornets nests for shits and giggles.

lacktheknack:

Yosharian:
Dragon Age 2 is a 5/5, 100% score.

And you give this a 7/10.

Not gonna lie, I smell a rat bro.

I will continue to do this as many times as I need to to get the bleeding point across! >:(

There are certain things which are objective, but let's address subjectivity for a moment. If the characters really are as unlikeable as Greg thinks, it's a definite negative for Greg, that's fine, and it should affect the score, that's fine. 7/10. 7 out of 10 is a barely-above-mediocre title. 6 is mediocre. 8 is good. 7 is slightly above-average. You can't seriously contend that mainly because the game suffers some character problems that it deserves to be scored 'slightly above-average'. This is sensationalist scoring, no more no less. The GTA series has always had its faults, and I'm one of the people who hates Red Dead Redemption's characters for precisely the reasons Greg raises - the characters were boring, shallow and unlikeable, and I cared not a jot for them. But there is no fucking way on this earth I could score that game 7/10. It is far, far too well-made for that.

Aside from that, there are many things about the game that are objective, and this can be seen in the games astonishingly high scores across the board. Even taking into account the obvious review bias that most journalists will have when reviewing such a behemoth, the consensus cannot be that wrong.

Finally, the 5/5 that he gave DA2 is perfectly valid to raise, because it rightfully casts his ability to review a game competently into doubt. Even if you adored all the subjective things about DA2 like the bland characters and the controversial new combat system (which I actually mostly liked... mostly), the loss of tactical view, etc, there are still many, many things which are objectively wrong with that game, such as the constant lazy reusing of the same areas over and over to give one concrete example. DA2 is nowhere, never in a million years, in nobody's eyes, a perfect score, and frankly barely a 9/10 on a good day.

Yours and other people's dismissal of valid criticisms only indicates a willingness to follow unquestioningly people who buck the trend, for the sake of bucking the trend. You're hipsters, in other words. No offence.

Oh but to make it clear, I don't think Greg is 'page-baiting' or doing this to get hits or whatever. I just think he set out to prove a point with this score, that's all.

Another interesting comparison would be that Greg considers Kane & Lynch 2, a most horrendous and sickening game when considering both the content of the actual game and the ugly circumstances surrounding its existence (i.e. why the fuck does it even exist when K&L1 was such a fucking horrible game), a 3 star game, or a 6/10. So this means that GTA5 is only better than K&L2 by a very, very slim margin. That's just ridiculous.

Sassafrass:
Oh boy, this is gonna end well.

Guys, just remember. A 3.5 out of 5 translates to a 7 out of 10. A 7 out of 10 is still pretty good, you know.

Tut, tut... You should know better. 1-8 on a 10 scale is horrible. Only 9 and 10s are seen as good.

josemlopes:
You cant base an entire review on personal preferences, that way if the reviewer of this site for this game was another one we would get an all together diferent opinion/score. One thing is saying that the minigames are just fluff, the game has technical issues or the story is dumb (if trying to be smart) and another thing is that the main characters arent the type of protagonists that you like.

There are a lot of things that I dont like but respect and see why people like it and its good, as a professional reviewer there is a certain responsability to not let you personal view to get that much in the way (it can get but make it clear that it is a personal view). Moviebob fails a lot of times on that too and the Gamespot review goes all out with political views and shit, thats even worse.

I really dont agree with the 10/10 being handled out there but most real issues we seem to get with GTA V are framerate drops and pop-ins. If the game managed to be all it wanted to be (and it wanted a lot) with only those flaws I think it deserves to be a bit more then "average".

Completely false.

I mean, "the story is dumb" is based on personal view, so your own list of critique-able things fails.

I've never been under the impression that reviews are anything BUT based on personal preferences, it's bizarre to see so many people trying to grasp at the concept just now. Yes, if a different reviewer reviewed it, then the score would be different, but that's not a problem. If you're not supposed to include personal preferences in a review, then metacritic would display one score across the board.

Carrots_macduff:
"You can only embody a vicious psychopath a short time before it becomes boring, at best, and soul-crushing, at worst.
Forcing players to murder people, not in a gamey "I killed you to complete a goal" way that defines this medium, but in a terrorizing and demeaning way, is not what will make videogames great."

why not? why is it comparatively boring to have an actual, human emotional reaction(negative or otherwise) to doing bad things when compared to killing without context like in most other games?

Maybe thats the perfect way to make video games great

Add the interactive element and the fact that this is ostensibly "the most entertaining game of the year" (according to users), and it's easy to see why people don't want to mix "fun" with "horrific death and violence", but they're OK with mixing fun with "derpy death and violence".

Most people playing Spec Ops: The Line weren't having the time of their lives. Some even said it was "anti-fun". GTAV... is not that.

So the reviewer's problem with the characters is that... they were assholes?
Well yeah it's GTA, every protagonist in the GTA series has been motivated by money, fuck by this point they've probably committed a few holocausts. Granted they may not be likeable but who plays GTA to like the characters? I play it to fuck shit up for teh lulz and act out my sociopathic fantasies. Also online, online online and more online.
Is this basically 'no fun' the review?

Yosharian:

lacktheknack:

Yosharian:
Dragon Age 2 is a 5/5, 100% score.

And you give this a 7/10.

Not gonna lie, I smell a rat bro.

I will continue to do this as many times as I need to to get the bleeding point across! >:(

There are certain things which are objective, but let's address that for a moment. If the characters really are as unlikeable as Greg thinks, it's a definite negative for Greg, that's fine, and it should affect the score, that's fine. 7/10. 7 out of 10 is a barely-above-mediocre title. 6 is mediocre. 8 is good. 7 is slightly above-average. You can't seriously content that mainly because the game suffers some character problems that it deserves to be scored 'slightly above-average'. This is sensationalist scoring, no more no less. The GTA series has always had its faults, and I'm one of the people who hates Red Dead Redemption's characters for precisely the reasons Greg raises - the characters were boring, shallow and unlikeable, and I cared not a jot for them. But there is no fucking way on this earth I could score that game 7/10. It is far, far too well-made for that.

Aside from that, there are many things about the game that are objective, and this can be seen in the games astonishingly high scores across the board. Even taking into account the obvious review bias that most journalists will have when reviewing such a behemoth, the consensus cannot be that wrong.

Finally, the 5/5 that he gave DA2 is perfectly valid to raise, because it rightfully casts his ability to review a game competently into doubt. Even if you adored all the subjective things about DA2 like the bland characters and the controversial new combat system (which I actually mostly liked... mostly), the loss of tactical view, etc, there are still many, many things which are objectively wrong with that game, such as the constant lazy reusing of the same areas over and over to give one concrete example. DA2 is nowhere, never in a million years, in nobody's eyes, a perfect score, and frankly barely a 9/10 on a good day.

Yours and other people's dismissal of valid criticisms only indicates a willingness to follow unquestioningly people who buck the trend, for the sake of bucking the trend. You're hipsters, in other words. No offence.

Nope.

You see, the Escapist does not give a rip about how the gaming industry treats ratings. It runs on its own system, independent of the "8.8" phenomena.

3.5 means "heavily flawed but very enjoyable" or "notably above average". In this case, it's probably the first one.

5 means "not necessarily perfect, but exceptionally enjoyable regardless".

It has always been this way. The Escapist has been "bucking the trend" since before the trend was a thing. They don't fit the trend because people are applying it to them retroactively.

Also, if I'm bucking the "7/10 is entirely average" standard, it's not because I'm a hipster, it's because that standard is the stupidest standard in the critiquing world. 5 is average in movie critique, book critique, essay critique, etc. ONLY GAMING has it arbitrarily raised to 7... because the fans will cry otherwise.

Greg Tito:
Grand Theft Auto V Review - People Suck

You can't deny the game's achievements, but the writing will push you away.

Read Full Article

Exactly how I felt about Saints Row II through IV, except the game's achievements were anything but impressive. Whether Saints Row's devs paid more than Rockstar or Greg is a SR fanboy is anyone's guess.

Carrots_macduff:
Maybe thats the perfect way to make video games great

I think it depends on the context of the game, though. I personally hated Spec Ops: The Line. Despite where a majority of people went with the title, I felt like it made way too many sacrifices in its medium to deliver its message. To the point where the game felt like it was punishing the player for wanting to play it. It may have meant to be poignant, but it ended up just feeling like it was punishing the player for trying to experience it. It was meant to be, perhaps, but spent too much time hammering the player down, and ended up being a really bad game for the effort. I felt like it lost its entire opportunity trying to hammer its message in.

To me, that's the mark of a bad narrative, sabotaging its central mechanic in order to sell its story. To others, it was a game that garnered massive review buzz, got several articles, and someone even published a book on it. That is the dynamic nature of opinion, and so it also seems true for GTA V.

Anthadlas Babyeater:

lacktheknack:
I will continue to do this as many times as I need to to get the bleeding point across! >:(

It's a valid point if the reviewer is clearly insane

The point of the matter is that Greg Tito seemingly didn't like the narrative styling and structure GTA V put its weight on. The object that was meant to absorb the player for hours and hours turned him off of it. He stated later in the review that it would have been game of the decade had the story not be unnerving, decadently vicious, and unapologetically dark.

So what you have is a well-appointed, exceedingly lavish mansion on a crumbled and crashing foundation. Greg Tito mentioned toward the end of the review that it had opportunity to be Game of the Year, even Game of the Decade. Instead, he stated that the narrative that accompanies the game throughout the narrative and its characters were grating. Combine that with the unlikable protagonists. To him, that merited a 7 out of 10, admittedly still a high score.

Not so much "insane". Speaking as an observer looking in, I can understand his validations for the score he gave based on his review, so it's not a failed review.

But, like a said, that's the dynamic nature of opinion.

Lightknight:
Oh man, just criminals with no real motivation? Good review, that does ding it for me.

He didn't say they didn't have any motivation, he just said they were cunts without much in terms of redeeming qualities.

Which, by the way, I'm perfectly fine with. I honestly don't understand this obsession about being the good guy every time - it's not like they have a monopoly on good character development, motivation, and dialogue. More like the opposite, really.

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

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