Grand Theft Auto 5 Review - People Suck

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

Weaver:
A reviewer's personal preferences SHOULD affect the score of the game. That's what a review is. Someone's opinion on the game.

re·view
Noun
A formal assessment or examination of something.

o·pin·ion
Noun
A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

Anthadlas Babyeater:

Weaver:
A reviewer's personal preferences SHOULD affect the score of the game. That's what a review is. Someone's opinion on the game.

re·view
Noun
A formal assessment or examination of something.

...does not preclude opinion.

o·pin·ion
Noun
A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

...is not mutually exclusive with a review.

If reviews are not supposed to include writer's thoughts and emotions, then I'm done reading reviews. Thankfully, they are.

Criminals are bad people, more news at eleven.

Seriously now, though. I'm okay with a 3.5 out of 5. Hell, I'd be okay with a 0/5, as long as the reasons for it would be consistent. But in the end, everything I read here is "this game is pretty much perfect, but I give it a reduced score because the characters are dicks". From what I read, I think a more appropriate score would be a 4 or 4.5.

I guess it's still better than "This game is misogynistic because it hurts muh feelings :(", though. So there's that.

Note: this in no way means that the review is wrong. It's actually very well written, but I don't think the final score resembles it properly.

Edit:

lacktheknack:

If reviews are not supposed to include writer's thoughts and emotions, then I'm done reading reviews. Thankfully, they are.

In fact, they are not. Reviews are supposed to be as little biased as possible. Thoughts and emotions always carry a personal bias that makes the review less objective. In the end, we would end up with "I don't like this game, because I was sick when I played it and reminds me of mucus and coughs".
That is not to say that reviews that actually contain thoughts and emotions should be automatically invalidated. They are pretty much impossible to remove (we are not machines), but they should not be the main point. Opinionated reviews are pretty much worthless.

Ultratwinkie:

So its basically like every GTA ever?

I thought Niko was a scumbag, so my first thought was similar to this (ignoring, of course, that you said Roman. I hated him but assumed we were supposed to).

"Character" is something that is going to vary from person to person. As such, I'll wait and see how these guys play out. But if the game world is fun, I probably won't care. That's what killed IV for me. You play as a complete boar (or bore, take your pick) in a sluggish world I couldn't care less about once the original "wow" factor wore off.

I'm really hoping I enjoy the game's mechanics, but this review makes it look like I will. If so, I can ignore being a monster. I loved playing on in Saints Row 2.

lacktheknack:

Anthadlas Babyeater:

Weaver:
A reviewer's personal preferences SHOULD affect the score of the game. That's what a review is. Someone's opinion on the game.

re·view
Noun
A formal assessment or examination of something.

...does not preclude opinion.

o·pin·ion
Noun
A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

...is not mutually exclusive with a review.

If reviews are not supposed to include writer's thoughts and emotions, then I'm done reading reviews. Thankfully, they are.

Assessing or examining something means looking at it for faults or potential flaws. Thinking that the characters are too violent is not a flaw with the game if they are designed to be that way. It is only a flaw when based on the reviewers personal morals and not applicible to anybody else playing the game.

I could understand if this was a review on youtube or some other site, with just a guy giving his opinions on the game but on a proffessional review site it is out of place and very amatuer

Anthadlas Babyeater:

lacktheknack:

Anthadlas Babyeater:

re·view
Noun
A formal assessment or examination of something.

...does not preclude opinion.

o·pin·ion
Noun
A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

...is not mutually exclusive with a review.

If reviews are not supposed to include writer's thoughts and emotions, then I'm done reading reviews. Thankfully, they are.

Assessing or examining something means looking at it for faults or potential flaws. Thinking that the characters are too violent is not a flaw with the game if they are designed to be that way. It is only a flaw when based on the reviewers personal morals and not applicible to anybody else playing the game.

Except, you know, when they happen to possibly share said morals.

Also, "it's designed to be that way" never protects something from criticism. Ever.

Video game reviews are not the same as academic or scientific reviews.

OK, so I had pre-ordered this game a while back and am heading into town early tomorrow morning before work starts so no review would influence my buying decision but anyway, given that the recommendation states that I'll be able

to play as characters with no justifiable motivation for doing awful things to people.

you've managed to sell the game to me (again) anyway. Thanks Escapist!

This is history repeating itself, nothing new. I appreciate your honesty Greg, even though I was a bit angered by the whole "DA2 5/5 bit" but I got over it and understand that it's your review.

Regarding GTA5 however I've been checking multiple reviews from other outlets as well and all I can say is that I hope that this will be a better game and a better port than what GTA4 was. Will play it once it comes to PC eventually.

Anthadlas Babyeater:

lacktheknack:

Anthadlas Babyeater:

re·view
Noun
A formal assessment or examination of something.

...does not preclude opinion.

o·pin·ion
Noun
A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

...is not mutually exclusive with a review.

If reviews are not supposed to include writer's thoughts and emotions, then I'm done reading reviews. Thankfully, they are.

Assessing or examining something means looking at it for faults or potential flaws. Thinking that the characters are too violent is not a flaw with the game if they are designed to be that way. It is only a flaw when based on the reviewers personal morals and not applicible to anybody else playing the game.

I could understand if this was a review on youtube or some other site, with just a guy giving his opinions on the game but on a proffessional review site it is out of place and very amatuer

But I'm very happy they said it, because it's directly applicable to me. If it wasn't in the review, then where was I going to hear it?

It's possible to have an objective AND subjective aspect of a review, and I fail to see how it's "unprofessional".

I find it really interesting to read how different people's expectations are with respect to video game reviews.

It seems like some people read them for a person's opinion (ie "I want to see what John thought about ______"), while others are looking for a more clinical / detached assessment to help inform them about a decision (ie. "Is ________ worth $60 now").

Personally, I lean towards the latter but feel its somewhat interesting since it explains why some people are disappointed while others aren't (as well as why some video reviews are more popular than others). Naturally, those two approaches aren't mutually exclusive and every review tends to include mixes of both, but its the ratio of one to another that I think people gravitate to.

shrekfan246:

Anthadlas Babyeater:

lacktheknack:

...does not preclude opinion.

...is not mutually exclusive with a review.

If reviews are not supposed to include writer's thoughts and emotions, then I'm done reading reviews. Thankfully, they are.

Assessing or examining something means looking at it for faults or potential flaws. Thinking that the characters are too violent is not a flaw with the game if they are designed to be that way. It is only a flaw when based on the reviewers personal morals and not applicible to anybody else playing the game.

Except, you know, when they happen to possibly share said morals.

Also, "it's designed to be that way" never protects something from criticism. Ever.

Video game reviews are not the same as academic or scientific reviews.

One of the many reasons people will never take a review like this seriously if they are unable to be objective and provide us with facts for it being a good or bad game, rather than just stating their opinion like a newspaper column

MrBaskerville:

Milanezi:

lacktheknack:

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"...

okay, so if a reviewer hated the story and thought the characters were annoying he would still have to praise that part because the general consensus says it's cool? Why do we need several review sites if they all have to be objective, they are supposed to say the same afterall :p.

You are basically suggesting that a person should stop talking about a game if he doesn't like it or he should start lying to echo public opinion. It seems like a lot of work to do reviews this way, how do you make sure that your opinion matches the correct opinion?
Personally i read reviews because i want to hear what other people think, i want to hear opinions of people who have experience writing about videogames. I want to hear their true opinion and if it's different than my own. then that's just interesting.

No, I believe he should say WHY the character or story or both is bad. Why didn't they like it? And they shouldn't jump at something they KNEW they wouldn't like it (do you buy games you know you don't like the subject?). He can review it and say "the game is overly violent, something I personally hate, however this falls in place with the game's context..." see, here there is a bridge to connect things there's fundamentation to either take away the subjectivism or lessen it to a bearable level, otherwise the review degrades to a friendly bar talk (or unfriendly discussion?) that leads to a simplistic point of view. And for that, well, for that I just sit around with my friends and discuss with one another. Given, even the technical and objective points carry, in their base, subjectivism, however, it's a subjectivism born of a mutual (or almost mutual) consensus, it's one of primal levels, where the given community has applied values that in general are held as the "standard" which is then taken as the objective value. In that, it's general consensus that it's "a good control scheme to always have the trigger (guns) button on the RT and magic/powers on LT" (just giving an example), then we had Too Human, with that sword swinging thing in the analytical button and everyone hated it, it was considered "wrong", wrong because it's not within the range of the subjective general consensus, that is, the objectivist perception of where attack buttons should be ;) Saying that there will alway be subjectivism is a fact, but it's only the base, the foundation of objectivism and, if need be, matter to enrich the review with, but not to pass judgment upon (which seems to be the case).

Thanks to be polite in the discussion, I downright lost my temper with other people lol

Anthadlas Babyeater:
Thinking that the characters are too violent is not a flaw with the game if they are designed to be that way. It is only a flaw when based on the reviewers personal morals and not applicible to anybody else playing the game.

Violent characters are clearly part of the intended design, so you could assess them on how well they carried it off. However, Rockstar probably had additional goals than effectively conveying that characters are violent. They wanted the game to be an enjoyable experience. The argument being made in this review is that the dislikeable characters made it a less enjoyable experience.

Is that a valid criticism? It certainly is in movie or book reviews. The success of those mediums often hinges entirely on whether there is anything in the characters that resonates with the viewers. At first glance, it seems to me, that this sort of resonance is even more important in games because you're not just watching the characters, you're carrying out their actions.

In fact, it's a pretty damn common criticism in games. Lots of people hated Resistance 2 and Killzone 3 because the characters suck. The criticism was also leveled against the new DmC. There are a ton of other examples.

Clearly, this sort of issue with likeability doesn't matter to you. That's fine. It's great. But don't trash a review because of it. Just treat it like you would a book review. If you love pulpy sci fi, the criticism from a book critic who normally reads modern lit drama stuff isn't going to matter much to you. Read reviews by other people who like pulpy sci fi. You need to find reviewers who take the same considerations into account when playing games.

Personally, I like Classic Games Room. It's all about whether the experience was fun rather than the individual components of a game.

Anthadlas Babyeater:

shrekfan246:

Anthadlas Babyeater:

Assessing or examining something means looking at it for faults or potential flaws. Thinking that the characters are too violent is not a flaw with the game if they are designed to be that way. It is only a flaw when based on the reviewers personal morals and not applicible to anybody else playing the game.

Except, you know, when they happen to possibly share said morals.

Also, "it's designed to be that way" never protects something from criticism. Ever.

Video game reviews are not the same as academic or scientific reviews.

One of the many reasons people will never take a review like this seriously if they are unable to be objective and provide us with facts for it being a good or bad game, rather than just stating their opinion like a newspaper column

Except that for some people, knowing that these characters are morally reprehensible and lack the complexity of some other Rockstar characters is enough to know they won't like it. That's why subjective reviews are sometimes valuable. I don't care if a game is executed perfectly from a technical perspective. If the narrative doesn't interest me, then I won't want to play.

But not everyone feels that way. Some people don't care about the narrative and just want to have fun in a massive sandbox and don't care about the characters as people. That's just fine.

And that's why reviews like this are the most useful. Someone like me reads this review and can tell that this is almost certainly a game I won't enjoy playing, while someone like you can read this review and know that those aspects won't bother you and so you will probably enjoy the game since the reviewer said that the rest of the game is technically masterful.

I'd say that's pretty much exactly what a review ought to be.

Sassafrass:

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.

Quite alright, happens to the best of us. Being sane is over-rated, anyways...

Anthadlas Babyeater:
Snipped

Here's a purely objective review for you

I hope that's what you're looking for.

The one thing missing from all the reviews that I have read so far is that a lot of the value of the game is going to be found online. That was true for RDR for me at least. So even if the narrative is garbage... that's arguably only for half of the game (depending on how you play.)

I don't see what the problem is, I've always rooted for Mr. Blonde when I watch Reservoir Dogs, how can you have such a problem with being a bad guy? It's almost like playing Tomb Raider and not feeling any agency because you aren't a woman. I'm only surprised by the score because any reviews on The Escapist I've read in the past seemed to be skewed positive.

So now we don't have the thing where the protagonist is too sympathetic for the game world anymore, but we've replaced it with the three protagonists being so unlikable that no one wants to deal with them? Can't say I'm going to pick this up...

CAPCHA: gridlock...

Yup, that's going to be the state of this forum in just a bit.

Pat Hulse:

Anthadlas Babyeater:

shrekfan246:

Except, you know, when they happen to possibly share said morals.

Also, "it's designed to be that way" never protects something from criticism. Ever.

Video game reviews are not the same as academic or scientific reviews.

One of the many reasons people will never take a review like this seriously if they are unable to be objective and provide us with facts for it being a good or bad game, rather than just stating their opinion like a newspaper column

Except that for some people, knowing that these characters are morally reprehensible and lack the complexity of some other Rockstar characters is enough to know they won't like it. That's why subjective reviews are sometimes valuable. I don't care if a game is executed perfectly from a technical perspective. If the narrative doesn't interest me, then I won't want to play.

But not everyone feels that way. Some people don't care about the narrative and just want to have fun in a massive sandbox and don't care about the characters as people. That's just fine.

And that's why reviews like this are the most useful. Someone like me reads this review and can tell that this is almost certainly a game I won't enjoy playing, while someone like you can read this review and know that those aspects won't bother you and so you will probably enjoy the game since the reviewer said that the rest of the game is technically masterful.

I'd say that's pretty much exactly what a review ought to be.

But untill you play the game you will not know whether or not you consider the characters to be too violent or if the review is over reacting and just touchy to violence in general, It isn't representative of the game and is just his own opinion.
Granted if you know alot about the reviewer his opinion might be worth something but to most people visiting this site, they have no idea who the reviewer is, don't know him personally and couldn't care less about his opinion, they just want to know about the game.

ooh this is currently the lowest score on Metacritic loll
I suppose that's really gonna bring some attention here

Andy Shandy:

Anthadlas Babyeater:
Snipped

Here's a purely objective review for you

I hope that's what you're looking for.

This is fantastic, thank you for pointing me to this! This is a welcome link after getting depressed from all these comments. Jim Sterling is always amazing.

Saints Row's The Boss- Kills Julius even though Julius was right in that The Boss had become a monster (and the saints were just Vice Kings that wore purple), murders for fun, cripples the feed dog guitarist just to "send a message" to his friend, tricks Maero into killing his own girlfriend, lets the Ronin Kid be buried alive by Johnny Gat. Could of selflessly sacrificed himself to save all his friends and restore the earth, but rejects the offer even though the Evil Alien is right and the world would be better with out him.

But it's okay, because the character is motivated by.... What? He's just after power, and more power.

Claude- Career criminal. Doesn't even have motivation to do the things he does until after escaping Portland and his Ex shows back up. Up until then it's just about money.

Tommy Vercitti- Gets his revenge and then sets out to take over all of Florida cause he doesn't give a fuck

CJ- Motivation is family... Ironic, because CJ has little to no concern for the family of the people that he murders through out the game. Did the security guards in Mad Dogg's mansion have to die? No. Complete monster here as well. Gangsta.

Niko Bellic/Johnny Klebitz- Niko completely has lost his soul by the time he reaches Liberty. He's a HUMAN TRAFICCER. ("I've bought people, sold people") Klebitz has no trouble killing or harming others either. I'm sorry is Tito somehow thinks of these characters as heroic in some way, but they're not. They just confront villains far more evil than they are.

Luis- This one I'll concede. Luis wasn't a sociopath by any measure, just a guy in over his head.... Then again, he threatened to throw a reviewer out of an airplane for giving a bad review of his night club.

POINT IS I can't believe this dude is seriously trying to justify why THOSE characters were okay, but these no ones welll... as if to say if you want to play these characters and enjoy it there must be something fucked up about you. Maybe that's not meant to be implied that's how I read it.

I don't know what the hell Escapist problem is, but these past few months... I don't want to say they're more "liberal" cause that makes me sound more conservative than I am, but more bleeding heart than is necessary. It's a fucking "Male Power Fantasy" game and he's criticizing the MC for murdering the cuckolded husband? It's like watching interracial porn and being horrified by it's racial overtones.

Suffice to say, if they truly are scumbag characters as this guy claims, then it should satisfy the itch I've had since Saints Row 2.

In GTA IV Rockstar create a character who complains that he's forced to do morally reprehensible things. This garners hate because of the ludonarrative dissonance it creates.

In V Rockstar create three characters who, like the ones in GTA 1, London mission packs, 2, III, VC, SA (to a somewhat lesser extent), Liberty City Stories and Vice City Stories, have no qualms with killing people to get ahead in life and 'career.' This again garners hate because ... why? Because the characters don't do what you would do in those situations? Sit together and talk it out?

Also, I completely disagree with the comment that the characters lack any motivations. Their motivations are made quite clear when you're being introduced to each of them. Frankly, this entire review just seems deliberately constructed to artificially stir up controversy over a game everyone anticipated 10/10 reviews for.

I honestly don't care what score you gave it, but calling this game 'deeply flawed' because you can't identify with the type of character present in every GTA ever is just a lie. The kind of comment I would maybe anticipate from someone whose first GTA was IV.

But hey, at least now I know never to listen to the Escapist when it comes to reviews.

Welp, call me old-fashioned, but I like to have some sort of favorable bent towards the protagonist I'll spend several hours playing as. Being told that my three avatars are utter scumbags doesn't do it for me.

Oh well. Back to my dildo bats and Inflato-Rays.

Well that's respectable. Im glad that you guys gave it the score you think it deserves instead of just 5/5ing the shit out of it. However I disagree, I have always hated the protagonists of GTA games. Loathing is just another emotion and if this GTA pisses you off so much I will undoubtedly love ever minute of it. Also you are keeping the metascore down. JERKS!

you know, this doesn't really surprise me. the biggest problem I've had with gta is even if the main character is somewhat likeable the guys you work for out the gate are always stupid fat racist scumbags who screw up at even the simplest tasks. it's like being asked to look after a giant baby with no potty training. I get it these guys are "capable" I suppose but in saints even when it was really thug heavy it was fun. johnny gat was always a vicious psychopath but they managed to make him likeable even in the first game and in the second he was sympathetic even. so the open world is fun, the activities are fun, and the driving which absolutely sucked in 4 is a selling point in 5? no thanks. i'm happy to skip this one.

rarewt:
This garners hate because of the ludonarrative dissonance it creates.

The word you are now looking for is Lugoscababib Discobiscuits

Milanezi:

MrBaskerville:

Milanezi:

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"...

okay, so if a reviewer hated the story and thought the characters were annoying he would still have to praise that part because the general consensus says it's cool? Why do we need several review sites if they all have to be objective, they are supposed to say the same afterall :p.

You are basically suggesting that a person should stop talking about a game if he doesn't like it or he should start lying to echo public opinion. It seems like a lot of work to do reviews this way, how do you make sure that your opinion matches the correct opinion?
Personally i read reviews because i want to hear what other people think, i want to hear opinions of people who have experience writing about videogames. I want to hear their true opinion and if it's different than my own. then that's just interesting.

No, I believe he should say WHY the character or story or both is bad. Why didn't they like it? And they shouldn't jump at something they KNEW they wouldn't like it (do you buy games you know you don't like the subject?). He can review it and say "the game is overly violent, something I personally hate, however this falls in place with the game's context..." see, here there is a bridge to connect things there's fundamentation to either take away the subjectivism or lessen it to a bearable level, otherwise the review degrades to a friendly bar talk (or unfriendly discussion?) that leads to a simplistic point of view. And for that, well, for that I just sit around with my friends and discuss with one another. Given, even the technical and objective points carry, in their base, subjectivism, however, it's a subjectivism born of a mutual (or almost mutual) consensus, it's one of primal levels, where the given community has applied values that in general are held as the "standard" which is then taken as the objective value. In that, it's general consensus that it's "a good control scheme to always have the trigger (guns) button on the RT and magic/powers on LT" (just giving an example), then we had Too Human, with that sword swinging thing in the analytical button and everyone hated it, it was considered "wrong", wrong because it's not within the range of the subjective general consensus, that is, the objectivist perception of where attack buttons should be ;) Saying that there will alway be subjectivism is a fact, but it's only the base, the foundation of objectivism and, if need be, matter to enrich the review with, but not to pass judgment upon (which seems to be the case).

Thanks to be polite in the discussion, I downright lost my temper with other people lol

Okay that i can agree with, atleast to some extent. I do think it's hard to tell if you would like something until you've played it extensively. With this review he seems to like previous GTA games so i think it seemed fair enough to let him review this one. When it comes to liking the violence i think it's a bit more complicated than that, i don't get the impression that Tito dislikes violence i just get the impression that they took it to far i this one, made it too mean spirited or something like that which i think is a valid critiscism, even for a game that is supposed to be violent. GTA was always violent but it was never downright vile or disturbing. Maybe the same reason some movie reviewers detested Pain and Gain? Some loved it while others found it repulsive and called it the worst thing ever.

Doesn't the gameplay trailer explicitly say "remember. These are hardened criminals, and not to be taken lightly?"

Anthadlas Babyeater:

Pat Hulse:

Anthadlas Babyeater:

One of the many reasons people will never take a review like this seriously if they are unable to be objective and provide us with facts for it being a good or bad game, rather than just stating their opinion like a newspaper column

Except that for some people, knowing that these characters are morally reprehensible and lack the complexity of some other Rockstar characters is enough to know they won't like it. That's why subjective reviews are sometimes valuable. I don't care if a game is executed perfectly from a technical perspective. If the narrative doesn't interest me, then I won't want to play.

But not everyone feels that way. Some people don't care about the narrative and just want to have fun in a massive sandbox and don't care about the characters as people. That's just fine.

And that's why reviews like this are the most useful. Someone like me reads this review and can tell that this is almost certainly a game I won't enjoy playing, while someone like you can read this review and know that those aspects won't bother you and so you will probably enjoy the game since the reviewer said that the rest of the game is technically masterful.

I'd say that's pretty much exactly what a review ought to be.

But untill you play the game you will not know whether or not you consider the characters to be too violent or if the review is over reacting and just touchy to violence in general, It isn't representative of the game and is just his own opinion.
Granted if you know alot about the reviewer his opinion might be worth something but to most people visiting this site, they have no idea who the reviewer is, don't know him personally and couldn't care less about his opinion, they just want to know about the game.

Well considering the reviewer used other Rockstar games to offer comparison, specifically referencing the differences between Niko and the protagonists of this game and the instances of the game that he cited as particularly disturbing, I'd say he did a perfectly acceptable job of elaborating on his points. Furthermore, practically every other reviewer I've seen for this game has praised just about everything except the characters and story. When it comes to Rockstar games, reviewers are always more interested in discussing the impressive gameplay and technical achievement while glossing over the narrative as "extra". "Red Dead Redemption" was praised all over the place and I actually hated it by the time I had gotten to the end. Not because it was too violent or anything like that but because the narrative just stopped working for me once the plot took a detour to Mexico and the ending was just plain bad. Of course, no one who reviewed it told me that because it was just so damn technically impressive, so I wasted a week playing a game that felt like a chore because I was convinced that at a certain point it HAD to become "awesome", but in the end, I just hated it.

However, I really liked "L.A. Noire" because it appeared to be focused more about telling interesting stories with complex characters and the interrogation mechanic seemed interesting to me.

For me, it's not about whether or not GTA V is "too violent". It's about whether or not the characters have interesting arcs. If their motivations are more complex than just "make money and kill things". If there isn't more to them than that, I don't care how good GTA V is at immersing you in the experience of playing a trio of lowlife assholes without redeemable qualities. I just don't want to play a 100-hour game as three lowlife assholes.

But if you can point me to one of the many Perfect Score reviews that actually talks about how deep and interesting the characters are, maybe I'll take this reviewer with a grain of salt. So far though, every review I've read or watched has tap-danced around this aspect, instead deciding to talk about everything else. So this reviewer is really the only basis I have to judge the worth of the characters and the narrative. That and the trailers and gameplay footage I've seen that pretty much just reinforces what this reviewer says.

Remember when GTA was actually fun? Tooling around the city in a 2D car, watching convicts sprinkle out of a jail you just crashed into like chips from a slot machine? Or actually engaging storylines like Tha Ballad of Gay Tony? Now it's like the developers said, "Whelp, Retro City Rampage stole our fun, Just Cause stole our comedy, Saints Row stole damn near everything. What do we have left for an identity?" And someone shrugged and said "I guess Fox News associates us with violent crime?" And then they spent 5 years and 20 billion dollars making the most ZOMG REELZ VIOLENT CRIME GAMZORZ EVAR!!!oneone.

Seriously, though, there's no point in even looking surprised at this point. It's a new pointless console generation. These people equate polygons with "EMOTION!!!". That means every single title coming down the pipe is going to get brownification like you've never seen before. Everything has to be DARK and GRITTY because GRITTY = REAL! Just ask the most serious and legitimate decade evar, THE 90'S! Wait...

Hmm maybe one problem is that every game "review" article is called a "review" and not a "critique". I wonder what would happen if every review was called a critique instead. 'This is the GTA V critique' instead of of 'review'. Just thinking about the differences between a critique and a review.

Anyways, I appreciate different opinions in these articles. They give me something extra to think about while I play, and even if I decide that I do not agree with the article it makes reading multiple reviews worthwhile (why read 3 reviews that all state how great/terrible something is?). Many times I feel like reviews do not give me enough differing opinions or details into questionable game design decisions. (I would not of been so disappointed with Skyward Sword if reviews warned me about pacing problems, fricken tadpole collecting, instead of just give it a 10 everywhere, which many people would now argue is crazy).

GTA is one of the most overrated series out there, but I don't get why it only deserved 3.5 stars.
Just because the violence has no justifications? Who the hell cares? The story always sucked in GTA.

What matters is, ate the driving mechanics and gameplay good? Is it more fun than GTA IV?

It seems like a bad review, but I appreciate it because it helps decreasing the Metacritic and Gamerankings average.

 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
Register for a free account here