Grand Theft Auto 5 Review - People Suck

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

Zachary Amaranth:

Andante:

Greg, you are a GAME REVIEWER not a commentator for Fox News or MSNBC, as a VIDEO GAME, GTA V is a masterpiece and it was able to pull of everything it aimed its sights on. You are only docking the score because you are maintaining a holier than thou moral ground which SHOULD NEVER BE PART OF A VIDEO GAME REVIEW. Your job is to not commentate on morals but review a video game for what it is, its graphics, game play, is it effective in its story telling, etc.

And a game which promotes its story and characters should get graded on its story and characters. So Greg seems to be doing what one should do in this scenario.

Under your logic it's perfectly fine for a game reviewer to give kingdom hearts 1+2, both 5/10 because they absolutely could not relate to the main character. I know I would, I find most JRPG characters completely unrelatable especially if they are male and absolutely detest the cliche stories I find in most JRPGs, under these circumstances a majority of all JRPGS I would rate between 4/10 - 6/10.

However I would never do that, because I know that it was the game's intention to have such whiny characters with emo issues since their target audience is into that kind of stuff. So in a sense I would instead rate these JRPGs highly, because despite ME not having any relation to the characters or story, they are effective story mediums for their TARGET AUDIENCE.

It's quite obvious Greg Tito was not the target audience of GTA V, however greg's ego did not allow him to admit that, instead he went on a tangent writing a review screaming HEY LOOK EVERYONE, I AM GREG, I'M SUCH A REASONABLE AND KIND HUMAN BEING, SEE HOW RESPONSIBLE I AM!?!?!

This is just like modern Game Journalism The Movie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko1sklmOR9E

People really should not take reviews so seriously it's ok for someone not to like a game you like.

My review of GTAV notdarksouls/10

Andante:

Under your logic it's perfectly fine for a game reviewer to give kingdom hearts 1+2, both 5/10 because they absolutely could not relate to the main character. I know I would, I find most JRPG characters completely unrelatable especially if they are male and absolutely detest the cliche stories I find in most JRPGs, under these circumstances a majority of all JRPGS I would rate between 4/10 - 6/10.

However I would never do that, because I know that it was the game's intention to have such whiny characters with emo issues since their target audience is into that kind of stuff. So in a sense I would instead rate these JRPGs highly, because despite ME not having any relation to the characters or story, they are effective story mediums for their TARGET AUDIENCE.

It's quite obvious Greg Tito was not the target audience of GTA V, however greg's ego did not allow him to admit that, instead he went on a tangent writing a review screaming HEY LOOK EVERYONE, I AM GREG, I'M SUCH A REASONABLE AND KIND HUMAN BEING, SEE HOW RESPONSIBLE I AM!?!?!

So you're suggesting that game reviews should only be written with an audience in mind of people who would like the game? To paraphrase Jim Sterling, "If you like this game, then you'll find it enjoyable. If you don't like this game, you won't."

Seems to me that rather demand some ridiculous detached objectivity in the review, it makes sense to find a reviewer with the same taste as yours and read their reviews. That way, you'll know whether it's good within the context of things you like.

It's not like they're measuring the tensile strength of a piece of rope - it's about whether they enjoyed a freakin' game.

Grey Carter:
Why you gotta' be so controversial, Greg? Jesus.

This post would be already hilarious coming from most Escapist's users, but it becomes even more special when you realize it was Grey "Zimmerman mode" Carter who wrote it.

I'm probably in a minority of gamers, but I do need to be able to sympathise with the character(s) I'm playing with in order to enjoy a game. For that reason, I'm glad that some reviewers still dare to do an actual review on what they liked and what ticked them off. I think it's a bit harsh to punish it so hard mainly for that reason, but I'm sure we'll get to read more of the reasoning behind that in an upcoming editorial.

I'll most likely still buy the game once it comes out on PC, but I'll wait for the price to go down quite a bit due to this information. I had hoped that Rockstar would continue their trend of giving some back-story explaining why exactly the characters became who they are, but apparently that was false hope. I'm not sure which GTA it was where this happened, but there was one where I pretty much got depressed from playing the game and decided to play something else for a week just to counterbalance the careless killing. Perhaps that's a clue that this sort of game just isn't completely my style.

MBurdock:

Andante:

Under your logic it's perfectly fine for a game reviewer to give kingdom hearts 1+2, both 5/10 because they absolutely could not relate to the main character. I know I would, I find most JRPG characters completely unrelatable especially if they are male and absolutely detest the cliche stories I find in most JRPGs, under these circumstances a majority of all JRPGS I would rate between 4/10 - 6/10.

However I would never do that, because I know that it was the game's intention to have such whiny characters with emo issues since their target audience is into that kind of stuff. So in a sense I would instead rate these JRPGs highly, because despite ME not having any relation to the characters or story, they are effective story mediums for their TARGET AUDIENCE.

It's quite obvious Greg Tito was not the target audience of GTA V, however greg's ego did not allow him to admit that, instead he went on a tangent writing a review screaming HEY LOOK EVERYONE, I AM GREG, I'M SUCH A REASONABLE AND KIND HUMAN BEING, SEE HOW RESPONSIBLE I AM!?!?!

So you're suggesting that game reviews should only be written with an audience in mind of people who would like the game? To paraphrase Jim Sterling, "If you like this game, then you'll find it enjoyable. If you don't like this game, you won't."

Seems to me that rather demand some ridiculous detached objectivity in the review, it makes sense to find a reviewer with the same taste as yours and read their reviews. That way, you'll know whether it's good within the context of things you like.

It's not like they're measuring the tensile strength of a piece of rope - it's about whether they enjoyed a freakin' game.

So you are fine if Half Life 3 was released and a CoD reviewer fanboy gives it a 6/10 because no iron sights, killstreaks, perks?

Usually a game review site has multitudes of reviewers, each with their own areas of interest/expertise.

GTAV is a sandbox game, yet in Greg's review, there is almost ZERO emphasize on it's sandbox, or activities... actually the whole review gave me ZERO information on what to expect from GTAV's sandbox... that info I had to gleam other more useful reviews.

Intead Greg approached review wise as a you would some kind of linear RPG, so it strikes me that Greg is not a sandbox gamer but a RPG gamer.

So yes I think its wrong someone a game is not designed for should review the game. I know I would be pissed if Homeworld 3 was released and it got bad reviews because it was reviewed by someone who is into farmville and found it too complex or something.

Grey Carter:
Why you gotta' be so controversial, Greg? Jesus.

Greg Tito confirmed for /b/tard

Andante:

However I would never do that, because I know that it was the game's intention to have such whiny characters with emo issues since their target audience is into that kind of stuff.

And good for you. Basically, though, you've boiled down the essence of your complaint: stop doing things different from me.

Which is fine, I guess. You're as entitled to your opinion as Greg or anyone else. You cannot, however, enforce your will on anyone. Not unless you have access to alien technology or psychic abilities.

However, I wonder if you've considered how absurd your comparison sounds. I mean, first off, people do dog JRPGs for their emo characters in ridiculous clothes. But more to the point, that comparison implies that GTA is always like this. For someone who likes the game so much as to call it a masterpiece, that displays a rather stunning disregard for the rest of the series. Perhaps you should play a couple of them, watch some videos, or hell, even just read a synopsis.

Andante:

So you are fine if Half Life 3 was released and a CoD fanboy gives it a 6/10 because no iron sights, killstreaks, perks?

Usually a game review site has multitudes of reviewers, each with their own areas of interest/expertise.
[SNIP]
So yes I think its wrong someone a game is not designed for should review the game. I know I would be pissed if Homeworld 3 was released and it got bad reviews because it was reviewed by someone who is into farmville and found it too complex or something.

Regarding the hypothetical HL3 review. Yep, totally fine with that. Why would I care about a CoD fanboy's opinion on gaming? Imagine that Martha Stewart had a game review publication... would I give a crap? Nope. Same deal. The interests of the reviewer determine whether their scoring is of any interest to me. That's why I think metacritic is broken.

Should publications have multitudes of reviewers and assign reviews accordingly? Yep, but if they don't assign it well, that's their fault and I should just know the reviewers. Based on the consideration of reviewers and tone of publications, the following reviews mean nothing to me: Angry Joe, Gamestop, IGN, polygon (I intensely dislike their reviews), some kotaku reviewers, and CGRUndertow. I really like CGR, escapist, and eurogamer reviews.

Why get all defensive about the scores of a game? Just enjoy the damn game. If you need to know what you're getting into, sure, read reviews, but read the reviews of people whose opinions matter to you.

Andante:

MBurdock:

Andante:

Under your logic it's perfectly fine for a game reviewer to give kingdom hearts 1+2, both 5/10 because they absolutely could not relate to the main character. I know I would, I find most JRPG characters completely unrelatable especially if they are male and absolutely detest the cliche stories I find in most JRPGs, under these circumstances a majority of all JRPGS I would rate between 4/10 - 6/10.

However I would never do that, because I know that it was the game's intention to have such whiny characters with emo issues since their target audience is into that kind of stuff. So in a sense I would instead rate these JRPGs highly, because despite ME not having any relation to the characters or story, they are effective story mediums for their TARGET AUDIENCE.

It's quite obvious Greg Tito was not the target audience of GTA V, however greg's ego did not allow him to admit that, instead he went on a tangent writing a review screaming HEY LOOK EVERYONE, I AM GREG, I'M SUCH A REASONABLE AND KIND HUMAN BEING, SEE HOW RESPONSIBLE I AM!?!?!

So you're suggesting that game reviews should only be written with an audience in mind of people who would like the game? To paraphrase Jim Sterling, "If you like this game, then you'll find it enjoyable. If you don't like this game, you won't."

Seems to me that rather demand some ridiculous detached objectivity in the review, it makes sense to find a reviewer with the same taste as yours and read their reviews. That way, you'll know whether it's good within the context of things you like.

It's not like they're measuring the tensile strength of a piece of rope - it's about whether they enjoyed a freakin' game.

So you are fine if Half Life 3 was released and a CoD reviewer fanboy gives it a 6/10 because no iron sights, killstreaks, perks?

Usually a game review site has multitudes of reviewers, each with their own areas of interest/expertise.

GTAV is a sandbox game, yet in Greg's review, there is almost ZERO emphasize on it's sandbox, or activities... actually the whole review gave me ZERO information on what to expect from GTAV's sandbox... that info I had to gleam other more useful reviews.

Intead Greg approached review wise as a you would some kind of linear RPG, so it strikes me that Greg is not a sandbox gamer but a RPG gamer.

So yes I think its wrong someone a game is not designed for should review the game. I know I would be pissed if Homeworld 3 was released and it got bad reviews because it was reviewed by someone who is into farmville and found it too complex or something.

If he writes reasonable arguments for why he thinks that, then i really couldn't care less if that was his opinion or not. I would probably disagree but that's that, we can't agree on everything. I dislike plenty of games that are liked by the majority of gamers and i like a multitude of games that are disliked by many, i don't really care what other people think about a particular videogame. Though i do find it interesting to hear their opinions because it's interesting to see why some people like something i dislike and vice versa.

I honestly don't see why this is such a hugh problem, why can't some random reviewer have the opinion that the characters in a GTA game kinda sucked? To some people it matters to others it doesn't, personally i don't really care about story in GTA games mainly because i hate the style and the characters while i do find some enjoyment in playing around with the cops. But to Greg it seems to be important which i guess is fair enough considering a large portion of the game is dedicated to the story, hence the score^^. Not that i find his reviews particularily great or anything, this might be the first one i read as i rarely read game reviews because they tend to suck (too much overhype and hyperbole) but i do read a lot of movie reviews and i enjoy hearing all kinda of opinions. It's cool that you can find reviews of movies that are the polar opposite of each other (and tbh i kinda miss that diversity in videogame reviews it always strikes me as odd that something can get universal praise.).

Grey Carter:
Why you gotta' be so controversial, Greg? Jesus.

Heaven forbid a user made a thread like this. It would be locked by page 3.

I don't think people are quite getting the point that it's less the fact that the characters are evil and more that in Tito's opinion they are unlikable tosspots that he can't sympathize with, and sympathizing with characters is one of the biggest drives in completing the story of a game.

But of course, this is the internet, and how dare you bring morality and opinions into a review.

Why do I get the feeling that Greg is the type of player that, when playing GTA, he only ever drives the type of cars his character has available (i.e. no stealing), always drives on the road, and always stops for red lights?

I haven't played GTA V yet, but it sounds like his only complaint was "The violence was way over the top"......isn't that what the entire series has been based off of: "Way over-the-top violence"? We're talking about a sandbox game that (at least in previous incarnations) allows you to drive down the road dropping hand grenades out of your window before hopping out of your car and shooting down the police chopper with an RPG before you jack someone's Lambo and cruise down the sidewalk mowing down pedestrians until you find a hooker to take into a back alley, screw to get your health back, then beat her with a baseball bat to get your money back.

"Doesn't make for good escapsim"...GTA is BUILT on escapism, allowing us to be absolute wreckingballs of social carnage without having to worry about actually getting 3,847 consecutive life sentences for our crimes.

I don't begrudge Greg for giving GTA V a 3.5/5...I just don't think he really has an understanding of what the entire series up to this point has been based off of, especially since he cites Tommy Vercetti as some kind of "positive" anti-hero when in truth he's just a violent mobster more than happy to do whatever it takes to make sure that he comes out on top. The guy and his entire story is modeled off of Scarface for crying out loud. :P

I tend to enjoy the darker, uglier side of storytelling when it's framed in the way Rockstar tends to frame their games myself, but I appreciate Greg's take on it, precisely because it probably won't be mine. It's good to see things through the eyes of people that don't share your perspective, no matter what fanboys may think. If everyone in the world agreed on art, we'd all be much duller for it.

This review was pretty bad. Almost half of the entire review was a giant tirade about you not liking playing the evil dudes, and that the evil dudes are actually properly evil motherfuckers and not misunderstood puckish rogues.

RJ 17:
but it sounds like his only complaint was "The violence was way over the top"

Nope. From the review, "the subject matter or the protagonist's morals are skewed too far from the norm to be comfortably witnessed." He names a bunch of violent films that he thinks work because the audience can somewhat relate to the person causing the violence, and then argues that GTA V isn't one of them.

He also notes that GTA cannot make up its mind about what it wants to be, where the serious crime story jars with the juvenile parody.

He does say that the open world is great. IMO, the takeaway is that the online play is going to be awesome, while the story is meh.

I'm sorry but after reading this review my opinion of a certain staff member here has declined. Very little was mentioned of the gameplay, or any improvements/stumbles from GTA4 (Apart from "it looks pretty"), I mean have the police learned to chase you properly? Are you bombarded with annoying "come play pool with us" missions?

This seems to me like The Escapist is trying to garner more hits by appearing on the front page of MetaCritic reviews, which is something I know occurs in this industry.

I would have loved this review as it gave us something more than the fawning praise of the other sites but it does so at a complete loss of objectivity and comes across as an editor desperate for headlines. Whilst I applaud Tito for writing from a different angle, this should have been done as an Ed Op.

Great review thank you! Hmm that is a good point, they had THREE characters and not one of them has redeeming qualities? I liked the theme in GTA IV as you can get into the deeper reason why Nico was there and what he was trying to accomplish.

Also I have always appreciated the societal gaze back that the GTA series makes with puns, parodies etc. For me they kinda feel like easter eggs as I come across them and wonder that event is referring.

Maybe they will take this review to heart and the DLC will have some extra story elements that do give the characters some better qualities?

RT:
Yeah, what's up with "Tommy Vercetti did it for justice"? The guy was a total prick and when he got his revenge, he decided to go further and took control of the crime in the entire city, which involved murdering, stealing, shaking down and robbing a bank. And God bless him for it, he was fun.

You could still relate to his motivation because there was also a clear antagonist (Sonny Forelli and his crime family back in Liberty City). Tommy wanted to break free from Liberty City's influence and make an empire of his own. Having a very unlikable antagonist makes it easier to relate to the main character regardless of how evil he might be. In GTAV

Personally, it doesn't bother me. I quite like the change. And I don't think it's something that should affect the overall score of the game. It breaks away from the standard way of storytelling in video games. But I can understand why not everyone will appreciate it.

It was to be expected if you think about it. Pulling off three main characters in that way isn't easy. In order to make them all likable and relatable they'd have to be very similar to each other. Which would be boring. If not, then you're running the risk of creating one character who is more likable than the other two. And then you'll make the player feel like that one character is more of a main character than the other two. And what if you create two likable characters and the third one gets left behind? It would be a confusing mess. A disaster.

How many people complaining about the review have actually played the game? I mean, he might well have a point. Indeed, for all we know Mr Tito may have been bribed into hiding the fact that all the trailers are a lie and the actual game is merely a re-release of Jet Set Willy.

I myself will get it, as I have enjoyed almost every other instalment in the franchise, and will make my own mind about it. In much the same way that Mr Tito has.

No Escapist review has held weight since the Dragon Age 2 review for me. Same reviewer gave it a perfect score.

Breaking news: GTA features deplorable characters and anti-heroes

I don't even care anymore. I've already pre-ordered it, and I'm most likely going to enjoy it.

Personally, I think it's fucking hilarious that this is the big 'contrary review,' and the reviewer gave it a god damn 7.

It is the difference between The Godfather Part 1 and Part 2, between Inglorious Basterds and Triumph of the Will, and between Just Cause 2 and JFK Reloaded. In the former examples, the audience can get behind the anti-heroes depicted for whatever reason and condone their admittedly awful actions, but in the latter group, the subject matter or the protagonist's morals are skewed too far from the norm to be comfortably witnessed.

...hoookay. So in example of Inglorious Basterds, you are ready to condone soldiers torturing and killing prisoners of war and civilians, and committing suicide bombing runs, but characters motivated by greed for money are just unrelatable?

You do realize what kind of picture this paints of you, don't you?

Zing:
No Escapist review has held weight since the Dragon Age 2 review for me. Same reviewer gave it a perfect score.

Breaking news: GTA features deplorable characters and anti-heroes

This game DOESN'T have "anti-heroes". That was his point. In past GTA games you at least had anti-heroes with redeemable qualities to balance out the shitbags...this time around you ARE the shitbags and there's no redeeming in sight.

It's like playing the story of San Andreas through the eyes of Tenpenny or Big Smoke.

kuolonen:

It is the difference between The Godfather Part 1 and Part 2, between Inglorious Basterds and Triumph of the Will, and between Just Cause 2 and JFK Reloaded. In the former examples, the audience can get behind the anti-heroes depicted for whatever reason and condone their admittedly awful actions, but in the latter group, the subject matter or the protagonist's morals are skewed too far from the norm to be comfortably witnessed.

...hoookay. So in example of Inglorious Basterds, you are ready to condone soldiers torturing and killing prisoners of war and civilians, and committing suicide bombing runs, but characters motivated by greed for money are just unrelatable?

You do realize what kind of picture this paints of you, don't you?

Brutally killing brutal jew killers is absolutely A-OK in most people's books.

So, I got it on Sept 16th already, played 4 hours straight and I already like Mike and Franklin. The game's fantastic so far. Maybe just bad luck with the characters, Greg.

ticklefist:

kuolonen:

snip

...hoookay. So in example of Inglorious Basterds, you are ready to condone soldiers torturing and killing prisoners of war and civilians, and committing suicide bombing runs, but characters motivated by greed for money are just unrelatable?

You do realize what kind of picture this paints of you, don't you?

Brutally killing brutal jew killers is absolutely A-OK in most people's books.

Some of the people they killed were regular soldiers of wehrmacht, who were about as much involved with nazi party as the average G.I. stationed in Afghanistan is involved with whoever started the war. SS =/= Wehrmacht. Well, most of the time.

As side note, I do understand the the thrill of murdering someone you perceive as your moral enemy in every aspect. Just remember that the same reasoning is also used by the people on the other side, by people like brevic and taliban pilots. Unless you really are cool with being on same moral level as the latter, don't try to make it as standing point for moral high ground.

So my assumption that GTA5 could be safely ignored for favor of picking up Saints Row 4 is now justified? Thanks, Greg!

I never got much enjoyment out of the GTA series after San Andreas anyways. A jetpack might change my mind though... but probably not if watching the characters would just make me sick. There's a fine line between loveably psychotic and just plain old psycho psychotic which it sounds like Rockstar how now missed. Hell, i even thought GTA4 had shit characters, but that was just because they were boring.

My complaint about GTA IV was that the story was too dark and filled with shitty people who were not in the least bit amusing to make up for it. Guess I will be giving this one a miss.

Grey Carter:
Why you gotta' be so controversial, Greg? Jesus.

Isn't it obvious Grey. He's trying to steal your thunder! Quick, come up with something more controversial so then I can watch the flames rise higher. XD
You have to admit though, it's quite funny to watch people get upset because someone had the gall to have an opinion. :D

Clovus:
So, they addressed the ludonarrative dissonance from the previous titles by actually making the characters terrible people. I don't see a problem there. Niko was especially weird to play as. I don't see why I should think the characters in GTA have any motivation for doing terrible things because I'll spend most of my time doing really terrible things for no good reason. The games have always about creating mayhem and seeing how the game reacts to the terrible things you do. Matching the characters to the gameplay should be a good thing.

I guess they could have gone the Red Dead route. I actually played that game as a "good" guy because John Marshton was a "good" man.

It seems like the score is based too heavily on the game being a movie that you didn't like very much because you couldn't care about the reprehensible characters. But this is a game about being reprehensible. It sounded like the game part was great.

This.

Though I'd wager that, from the reviews I've read, it's just the Trevor character that is written in that fashion and seems to be the excuse to go nuts while the other ones are more fleshed out, one coming somewhat across as Tony Soprano and the other as CJ. Hardly good law abiding citizens, but not the kind that would go on a rampage, so if you want to "roleplay" you just step into Trevor's shoes and sociopath away. Seeing as Rockstar, even when they do disappoint in the gameplay, do have a way of crafting a good story and throwing in as much mordant satire as they possibly can into a gamedisk, I find the complaints baffling for all the reasons you mentioned. That Greg Tito, always the epitome of well written and well researched articles actually goes and mention Vice City as a counterpoint to this by stating that Vercetti had a motive ( seemingly yet not unexpectedly missing the point that Vercetti was a total sociopath auditioning for Scarface and had NO REDEEMING QUALITY whatsoever) does not help matters much.

This seems to be a common staple in his reviews, writing the review for the game he wishes for it to be instead for the game that it actually is ( And mentioning the inevitable Dragon Age 2, I have to say that even though I *DO* like the game a lot, I don't let it blind me to the glaring contradictions within it) warrants quite a lot of criticism.

Shamanic Rhythm:
My complaint about GTA IV was that the story was too dark and filled with shitty people who were not in the least bit amusing to make up for it. Guess I will be giving this one a miss.

You shouldn't judge the game based on this review. Reviews tend to be highly subjective as it is, even more so when one discusses characters. You might like them.

I liken the idea of bringing personal morals and ideologies into a professional review of ANYTHING, whether it be a game, a book or a movie to bringing those same beliefs into a political discussion ala same sex marriage. Everyone acknowledges your right to have those views and shape your decision making/judgement accordingly, but that doesn't make you any less of a fucking idiot for thinking anyone cares what you morally object to.

Sounds like everyone got what they needed in the review and are merely protesting the conclusions the author came to. If, after reading the review, you find that the reasons for docked marks are favorable in your mind and you can tell that you'll enjoy the game because of that... That's a pretty damn good review!

Come on people, if you can say exactly why you disagree with the review based on your own value spectrum, you've been informed enough to make your purchase decision. That's exactly what reviews are for!

Greg, good on you for being able to write a review that's informative enough to give all sorts of people the knowledge they need to inform their purchase decision.

 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