Grand Theft Auto 5 Review - People Suck

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

Carrots_macduff:

lacktheknack:
Some even said it was "anti-fun". GTAV... is not that.

but where is the rule that says we need to keep our fun segregated from our delinquency?

django unchained is a great recent example of serious subject matter combined with oot grindhouse action

I didn't care for what I saw of Django.

Also, "Mafia II"'s demo turned me off of the game for this exact reason: It's too depressingly realistic in its horrible murder cutscenes that it utterly wrecked it.

This is why I like later Saints Row over earlier ones: I can't take the new ones seriously, so delinquency has a big barrier between me and the awful things my character does. Same with Prototype. Playing a bad guy and playing it straight just makes me feel like a bad person, and I don't tend to play games to feel bad.

Apparently, me and Greg are just on similar wavelengths. We're not asking you to "get with the program", but it's a perfectly valid reason to dislike a game.

ccdohl:

Ihniwid:
Dragon Age 2 was a helluva game...

Ah you beat me to it! The number one reason that this review should be taken with a pretty big grain of salt. Like the kind that they give to horses.

Man, you'd almost think people had opinions on things...

OT: Eh, I'm quite sick of GTA's shit anyway, and it not being on PC isn't doing it any favors anyway.

Rockstar, you can't go from making the excellent morally interesting story that was RDR and then make this and not get some eyebrow raises.

WanderingFool:

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.

*Looks at the post above this*

True, I forgot a 7 is a "barely-above-mediocre" score.
Forgive me. I went all sane there for a moment.

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.

I don't believe many people are angry about the score, it is the reason why the reviewer lowered the score as much as he did because of moral issues. Personally, this doesn't bother me at all as it actually reinforces my want to pick up the game. A game to affect someone's morals and attitude due to the characters being well written? It is something I really want to experience and play.

However, there will be those who see "It isn't a 5? DIRTY PEASEANT FUCKER! YOU WILL DIE IN THE INFERNO'S OF TEXAS SUMMER HEAT WHILE I CRY THAT YOU DIDN'T LIKE MY GAME SERIES AS MUCH AS I DO!"

Look, ONLY GTA IV had an anti-hero, Vercetti was a fucking scumbag as well as his predecessors. This is game about criminals, about people who chose the short road to reach their goals, and didn't flinch when this road was highly illegal. They ARE criminals, that's part of the GTA experience. Pop culture has created a criminal in the model of Scarface and the bikers of Sons of Anarchy, criminals who we can't help but love, maybe this game is one of those rare pieces where the criminal element is delivered raw, which is something not everyone stomachs, sure.

What really pissed me about this review? That single moment where it's briefly compared to Saints Row 4 (?!), I didn't like SR4, but hold the predecessors pretty close to my heart, be as it may, SR 4 is the one that's furthest from it's own predecessors let alone GTA, it's a game that went nuts and decided to turn your character into a pseudo-super-hero, the whole SR franchise has the idea of a gang becoming so famous that people adore you, even authorities are afraid of messing with you because you are POPULAR, so pop you become PRESIDENT OF THE USA (I love that part of SR 4, it's the fact that most gameplay happens in a matrix thing that disappointed me, that and the overkill of mega-powers...). In short, those games couldn't be farther away from each other, it's like comparing GTA V with inFamous or Prototype. He compared the games because both have criminals and an open world, but the focus is absolutely different one form the other (maybe if compared with SR 1, MAYBE).

Anyway, very weak review, you can't blame GTA for having "scumbag criminals" as main characters anymore than you can blame Superman for being almost unstoppable. It's one thing to rage about the "scumbags" being "scumbags" due to POOR writing, it's another thing to complain, well that they look like cruel egotistical criminals...

Milanezi:
Anyway, very weak review, you can't blame GTA for having "scumbag criminals" as main characters anymore than you can blame Superman for being almost unstoppable. It's one thing to rage about the "scumbags" being "scumbags" due to POOR writing, it's another thing to complain, well that they look like cruel egotistical criminals...

Lowering the score because you don't like the subject matter is entirely valid.

I find this review shockingly unprofessional and uninformative. A reviewer's subjectivity should not be praised, especially not when it comes to professional game journalism. I don't read a review to get some dude's opinion. I want to know if the controls are smooth and if the cars handle well, or if it feels like a penguin sliding over icy ground.

This review tells me almost nothing about HOW the game plays. THAT is why I read a review. Metacritic should seriously reconsider including The Escapist in their average scores.

Great read. I appreciate reviews that bring up points that other reviews do not address or scoff over. Although I will still buy this game eventually, thank you for your honest opinion in this review and for giving me new ideas to consider while playing through the game.

Nachtmahr:
I find this review shockingly unprofessional and uninformative. A reviewer's subjectivity should not be praised, especially not when it comes to professional game journalism. I don't read a review to get some dude's opinion. I want to know if the controls are smooth and if the cars handle well, or if it feels like penguin sliding over icy ground.

This review tells me almost nothing about HOW the game plays. THAT is why I read a review. Metacritic should seriously reconsider including The Escapist in their average scores.

I'm sorry, I'm just going to say it flat out. Reviews tell the reviewer's opinion. That's how it works. That's how it always works. An objective review? There is no such thing.

AmrasCalmacil:

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."

The complaint wasn't valid because it wasn't true. As it turns out, guns and cars are a massive chunk of the gameplay. Who'd a thunk it?

You're incorrect. Validity of an argument is a function of the structure of the argument rather than the truth value of the statements. For example, the following argument is valid.

1. If A then B.
2. A.
3. Therefore, B.

The truth of 1 or 2 has no bearing on validity.

The following argument is invalid, simply due to structure:
1. If Grand Theft Auto allows you to play as a sociopath, it is fun.
2. Grand Theft Auto allows you to play as a sociopath.
3. Therefore, it is not fun.

You're right that the problem is that Flamezdude essentially constructed a strawman. I don't think that 1 is nuanced enough to accurately explain what makes the game fun and I don't think that it's just being a sociopath that rubbed the reviewer the wrong way, but the approach to portraying sociopathy.

Your example is an unsound argument, but one that is valid.

Well, let me break out my Escapist Review Scale.

"THREE STARS. An average game experience. You'll play it and probably enjoy it. A month from now, you'll likely have forgotten all about it.

FOUR STARS. An outstanding gaming experience marred by just a few flaws."

Okay, so three stars is average and forgettable, while four stars is outstanding. And this game is scored at a 3.5.

So...somewhere between average and outstanding.

Gee, thanks. I can see why the score is so very necessary here.

Nachtmahr:
I find this review shockingly unprofessional and uninformative. A reviewer's subjectivity should not be praised, especially not when it comes to professional game journalism. I don't read a review to get some dude's opinion. I want to know if the controls are smooth and if the cars handle well, or if it feels like a penguin sliding over icy ground.

This review tells me almost nothing about HOW the game plays. THAT is why I read a review. Metacritic should seriously reconsider including The Escapist in their average scores.

You appear to be confusing reviews with previews... A preview will talk about technical aspects and the like, where as a review is someone who lets you know what they thought of it... they can add technical stuff in if they want, and Greg will in his editorial probably, but the review is all about his lasting impression, and how that shaped his final score.

lacktheknack:

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?

I'd say it's a good thing. He makes his point with a baseball bat.

I do like the review takes into account the narrative mostly, because seeing as how it's Rockstar, they're already great at the gameplay. To me it just seems like a polished up GTA4 with more cynicism... and fucking about.

Just started watching Breaking Bad, seeing the ransformation from all round nice guy to drug lord was really engaging, so when I hear that the chrarcters motives are on the sketchy side, can't say I'm intrigued.

But it's GTA, why the game is getting reviewed almost seems like something done out of tradition. The people that love the series will buy it, the people who were blown away by the trailers will buy it, and the 10% of the gaming population that doesn't care... just doesn't care. WHY THE FUCK AM I HERE!?

Nachtmahr:
I find this review shockingly unprofessional and uninformative. A reviewer's subjectivity should not be praised, especially not when it comes to professional game journalism. I don't read a review to get some dude's opinion. I want to know if the controls are smooth and if the cars handle well, or if it feels like penguin sliding over icy ground.

This review tells me almost nothing about HOW the game plays. THAT is why I read a review. Metacritic should seriously reconsider including The Escapist in their average scores.

Isn't a review supposed to be a critique of a game and not just a laundry list of what the game does? Are reviews really journalism? I think of journalism as more like news stories. Reviews are critiques. All reviews are subjective. One person may find the controls smooth, and feel like the cars handle well and other people may hate it. Handling and gameplay are part of reviews but that is not the only thing that make up a review. Reviews are more about the player's experience. Just because this review brings up new points that you do not care about does not mean everyone else does not care about this. I found this review interesting because it discussed questionable game design choices Rockstar made that dissuaded Greg Tito from enjoying the game more. Is this not important enough to discuss?

Also, Jim Sterling gave Deadly Premonition a 10, which controls and feels terrible. Should that review be taken off metacritic? That game is great for other reasons but not for the controls or even basic gameplay.

lacktheknack:

Milanezi:
Anyway, very weak review, you can't blame GTA for having "scumbag criminals" as main characters anymore than you can blame Superman for being almost unstoppable. It's one thing to rage about the "scumbags" being "scumbags" due to POOR writing, it's another thing to complain, well that they look like cruel egotistical criminals...

Lowering the score because you don't like the subject matter is entirely valid.

Not when the subject matter is delivered in an appropriate way, It's like complaining that you don't like Skyrim because it has too many Dragons and fantasy RPG's are boring.

GTA 5 is a game that sets out to show the story of 3 criminals who want money, respect and power, If you don't like that premise then don't play or review the game. Rather than forcing yourself through a game based on a premise you know you won't like and then writing a review on that game that would clearly be biased against it.

This is why I dislike reviews. Because a genuinely good game can be reviewed by somebody who personally dislikes it, but then publishing a review about it in which other people may base their purchase on the content within that review would make them rethink their purchase of a game that they would actually enjoy.

Game scores should be based on the technical aspects and quality of a game and reviewers personal opinions should be kept seperate. They should be mentioned and explained but the opinion of the reviewer which is purely subjective should not affect the rating of a game because developers can make great games but cannot be held responsible for bad scores based on a reviewers' personal feelings

erttheking:
So, your main problem with it is that the main characters are completely evil? Actually...I have to say I kinda like that idea. To quote Yahtzee "Sometimes it's gratifying to play as an evil hate ridden fuck instead of a snarky self righteous pretty boy." So yeah. I respect your opinion, but I think I'll be giving this game a crack.

I'm mostly amused that "you play as bad people" is a worthy justification to penalise it 1 1/2 stars. It's like panning Silent Hill 2 because:


Or giving Payday 2 a low score because "you shoot police officers".

I just find it hilarious that contrary to the website name, escapism isn't good if it's pretending to be the bad guy. However, they're allowed their opinion, and I'm allowed to look elsewhere for reviews.

What am I reading.

I'm.... yea I'm done coming here. Used to love this site, but now it seems like a chore to have to come here just to see the occasional ZP, or Jim video. The forums are nothing but neo-feminist rallies and other nonsense, so I guess he's just catering to his newfound bizarre audience.

So long and thanks for all the fish.

Anthadlas Babyeater:

lacktheknack:

Milanezi:
Anyway, very weak review, you can't blame GTA for having "scumbag criminals" as main characters anymore than you can blame Superman for being almost unstoppable. It's one thing to rage about the "scumbags" being "scumbags" due to POOR writing, it's another thing to complain, well that they look like cruel egotistical criminals...

Lowering the score because you don't like the subject matter is entirely valid.

Not when the subject matter is delivered in an appropriate way, It's like complaining that you don't like Skyrim because it has too many Dragons and fantasy RPG's are boring.

GTA 5 is a game that sets out to show the story of 3 criminals who want money, respect and power, If you don't like that premise then don't play or review the game. Rather than forcing yourself through a game based on a premise you know you won't like and then writing a review on that game that would clearly be biased against it.

Sounds good to me. However, he played it, he didn't like a key aspect of it and it badly affected the score. Such is life, and it's really not worth having the aneurysm that some people are having over it.

Remember, people, the final score has no bearing on real life. I think everyone is forgetting this.

I figured this would have at least netted a 4 star, surprised to see it dropped to a 3.5 considering most the negative points brought up seemed to be more down to Greg being morally offended. I don't think this review really sits with the community expectations of the game, which is a surprise as Greg normally manages to hit the nail on the head.

On one hand, the review's as honest as it gets. It's too well constructed and thought out for clickbait. However, I take issue with one point:

What's missing in GTA V's story is a sense that the characters have been painted into a corner by various machinations beyond their control, like Niko Bellic of GTA IV, or must commit their crimes to mete out justice, as Tommy Vercetti does in Vice City.

This is and always has been Grand Theft Auto, since GTA III (I don't remember the first two or London having a story). Claude was a criminal before Catalina turned tail on him. Tommy Vercetti was a criminal, gang member, drug dealer and killer for the Forelli family. CJ was the most sympathetic, having cleaned up his life before being dragged back in.

Nico is the first character they've actually tried hard with and it was hard to feel sorry for him when he was constantly splattered with someone else's guts. How jarring was it to go on missions where you stormed a building site, then only a few cut scenes later listening to him whine about his morals.

Well, I never liked GTA (apart from Vice city), but this review is kinda odd. I mean its his opinion (which is valid), but why is it reviewd by someone who will obviously not like it. I mean its not like all the other GTA´s had justifiable reasons to run around gunning down civilians by the hundreds. so this has to be expected.
Its like if I would review even the best driving game....I just dont like those kinda games, so it would get a bad score.
They should have two persons review it and give their opinions.

Nachtmahr:
I find this review shockingly unprofessional and uninformative. A reviewer's subjectivity should not be praised, especially not when it comes to professional game journalism. I don't read a review to get some dude's opinion. I want to know if the controls are smooth and if the cars handle well, or if it feels like a penguin sliding over icy ground.

This review tells me almost nothing about HOW the game plays. THAT is why I read a review. Metacritic should seriously reconsider including The Escapist in their average scores.

No... that's why you read a preview or FAQ.

"I don't read a review to get some dude's opinion"... wat.

Am i the only one who finds crying fanboys hilarious? I was literaly reading the comments with popcorn in hand, its better than watching a commedy XD. Though i guess that its kinda sad that people still dont understand that reviews are subjective opinions, i remember the same complaints to a review in a magazine that i read 10 years ago, so people didnt change that much over the years.

This just in: criminals tend to be sociopathic and generally unpleasant people. More at eleven.

This is like playing ARMA and complaining that the characters act too professional.

Greg Tito:
Unfortunately, you can only hear a character say "&^%@ you, Mother&*^%er" so many times before it starts to grate on you.

It certainly would be weird to hear people constantly speaking punctuation out loud. Do they really say "ampersand caret percentage symbol at"? That doesn't sound anything like how Californians speak.

lacktheknack:

Anthadlas Babyeater:

lacktheknack:

Lowering the score because you don't like the subject matter is entirely valid.

Not when the subject matter is delivered in an appropriate way, It's like complaining that you don't like Skyrim because it has too many Dragons and fantasy RPG's are boring.

GTA 5 is a game that sets out to show the story of 3 criminals who want money, respect and power, If you don't like that premise then don't play or review the game. Rather than forcing yourself through a game based on a premise you know you won't like and then writing a review on that game that would clearly be biased against it.

Sounds good to me. However, he played it, he didn't like a key aspect of it and it badly affected the score. Such is life, and it's really not worth having the aneurysm that some people are having over it.

Remember, people, the final score has no bearing on real life. I think everyone is forgetting this.

Review scores can easily have a bearing on Rockstars final sales however, even if it is a good game some people won't buy it based on a bad review, which is unfair to the developers as they can make a good game but still have no control over a reviewer that dislikes it for moral reasons and puts other people off from buying it who don't share the same morals.

Anthadlas Babyeater:

lacktheknack:

Anthadlas Babyeater:

Not when the subject matter is delivered in an appropriate way, It's like complaining that you don't like Skyrim because it has too many Dragons and fantasy RPG's are boring.

GTA 5 is a game that sets out to show the story of 3 criminals who want money, respect and power, If you don't like that premise then don't play or review the game. Rather than forcing yourself through a game based on a premise you know you won't like and then writing a review on that game that would clearly be biased against it.

Sounds good to me. However, he played it, he didn't like a key aspect of it and it badly affected the score. Such is life, and it's really not worth having the aneurysm that some people are having over it.

Remember, people, the final score has no bearing on real life. I think everyone is forgetting this.

Review scores can easily have a bearing on Rockstars final sales however, even if it is a good game some people won't buy it based on a bad review, which is unfair to the developers as they can make a good game but still have no control over a reviewer that dislikes it for moral reasons and puts other people off from buying it.

But this isn't a "bad review". According to the Escapist's Star Standards, 3 1/2 = "deeply flawed but very good game" or "notably above average game". In this case, it's probably the former.

Again: This review made me WANT to play the game, and just sandbox the whole dang thing (since the awful characters are mostly awful in the story quests).

As for whether this review has a major effect on game sales: <checks Metacritic> No, not really.

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! >:(

Oh just shut up! First of all, it stopped being funny around the first time you did it, secondly it wont stop any trolls, thirdly its debatable. I mean a review should inform people if they will like the game or not...this review does not. Especially in this case it begs for a second opinion. or just a removal of the final score. Just say "hey, I didnt like it, but if you are fine with being an asshole, youll love it. Or split the score or sth.
Using a score here is like asking someone who just loves fast trash movies to rate Citizen kane. It just doesnt make much sense.
Of course the opinion is valid for the person himself, but that doesnt help other people.

lacktheknack:

Milanezi:
Anyway, very weak review, you can't blame GTA for having "scumbag criminals" as main characters anymore than you can blame Superman for being almost unstoppable. It's one thing to rage about the "scumbags" being "scumbags" due to POOR writing, it's another thing to complain, well that they look like cruel egotistical criminals...

Lowering the score because you don't like the subject matter is entirely valid.

No it's not, it's subjective, subjectivism has no place in reviews. Imagine when you were back in college, your teacher couldn't give you a zero because "Well, you did give the right answer. But I hate the color BLUE, and sadly you wrote with a blue pen, so here, you get half the score." That's why I say he CAN judge by "the characters are too cruel and that does not fit the reality around them because of this and that", he CAN'T go with a hollow "I don't like bad guys so I'll punish the game".

If you don't like the subject matter and you don't have the balance to keep yourself "cold to the game", as in, forget everything and focus on objective terms, you can't review. If you hate this sort of violence in games don't review a game that has this sort of thing as part of its focus, the same goes to someone who's an extreme Halo addict making a review of Halo, the guy might ignore major problems just to give it a great review. When Baldur's Gate got that make-over for iPad, I remember here on The Escapist a reviewer who was truly honest: the guy stated he would NOT review the game, because he was such a fan of the original that his emotions might make him over critical in a negative or positive way.

I didn't get the sense that GTA V's reviewer despised the violence of the game, nor am I complaining about the game not getting 5/5. For all I know, the "missing stars" might be for an objective reason. Be that as it may, it is stupid to criticize a game founded on violence because it is "too violent"...

This is why star/number ratings are useless in game reviews. Read the words. Don't obsess over the number.
Then again, my opinion of any new GTA game is essentially "people still play GTA?" I suppose I'll derive some entertainment from it once people start running Twitch streams while trying to glitch the game out.

Wow...

At one we have in many cases people yelling that game reviewer are, let me borror some words, 'unethical' because they rate games too good and now we have a review where the reviewer gives his opinion (which is pretty much 90% of a review with the 10% being the only thing that you can judge objective [the technical aspect]) and still gives it a pretty decent score: FLAMEBAIT!!!

Jim gets flamed for giving it 9/10.

The gaming community, one has to love thee...

I kind of have to agree with some of the criticism people are levying against the reviewer (Greg) on this one, and I would say its almost on level with saying you didn't like Pulp Fiction because the people in it are reprehensible. That's not to say you can't dislike Pulp Fiction, but that kind of criticism seems more aimed at the subject, and not the game/movie itself.

The core of a GTA games is focused on sandbox play, variety, and spectacle while Greg zoomed in on the portrayal of the main characters instead, who arguably, are simply supposed to be there for some shoes to fill.

Don't get me wrong, I would've loved a good story along with great characters, voice acting, facial expressions, etc. but that isn't the focus of GTA. It would be like criticizing Inception for not teaching people about quantum physics. It'd be nice if it managed to do so, but that's not what people going to watch it are expecting.

The only thing I can come away with from this is thinking that Greg plays video games for a different reason than most people looking to play GTA do (which sounds generic and am sure you could say about almost everyone, I know). If he would've prefaced the review by stating that a large part of his enjoyment from playing video games is based on the portrayal and redemption of protagonists, then I don't think he'd get as much flak as he's getting right now.

Sadly, most of us can't know how we truly feel about the game until we get a chance to play it. But my 2 cents for what its worth.

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

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 66590)