Zero Punctuation: Grand Theft Auto 5

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

ProfessorLayton:
First off, this is the first GTA game I've ever purchased.

Ah! Thank you. That does explain why you don't miss all of the side activities that were in IV that were stripped out of V, like pool and bowling.

Carpenter:
This whole "SR versus GTA" thing is nothing short of silly. It's like pretending that Skyrim and Dark Souls are competing games. A person is perfectly capable of enjoying both, I think I'm living proof of that. This whole idea that you need to knock one game because you like another is just childish.

It certainly is silly, but try explaining to my mother and grandmother that no matter which spaghetti sauce company you favour, you're still eating goddamn spaghetti. If this proves anything, it's that the details matter to some people. I enjoy a fuckton of different sauces and I've been warming up to GTA V through watching Let's Plays and Longplays - but the fact remains that my original post obviously details a personal judgment.

With cynicism and dry realism being all the rage in terms of game development, I found myself naturally gravitating towards the one title that offered me a break from all this. I'm still lukewarm towards GTA V largely because of its tone, not because I'm somehow unable to perceive that someone else might find its mechanics more rewarding.

Carpenter:

Pink Gregory:
I hooted like a loon at that final joke. I'm a bad person.

Having more than 2-3 people writing a single character's dialogue is a terrible idea. Even then, it's really one writing and two editing.

So comics are a horrible idea?
You know how many people have written dialog for spiderman? Still manages to be a consistent character.

I love ZP but if you believe the characters are poorly written just because Yahtzee told you so, maybe you should avoid games as a whole.

Do single issues of comics have multiple dialogue writers? I'm likening a single game to a single comic issue, not a long-running character.

Also, you're being massively presumptuous; I didn't mention anything about the writing of GTAV, naturally I haven't played it so I can't comment, I just thought that the idea of writing by committee isn't the best approach. I got the impression that Yahtzee was insinuating that he felt there was a design by committee approach to the writing.

Huh, well it would appear I was wrong, only three writers credited on IMDB.

Here is the difference between SR and GTA. There's a mission in GTAV where you have to defend a truck full of stolen supercars from the police using a James Bond'esque sports car with guns and spikes. It's pretty awesome and the mechanics are great; however, I'm quite sure that I'll never see those cars again. If it had been Saints Row, at the end of the mission the James Bond car, and all of the super cars would have automatically added to my garage, to play with and destroy as many times as I'd like.

Carpenter:

LordTerminal:
So basically the impression I got from this was this did not deserve that billion dollars in sales it got and was basically just GTA IV minus the escort missions.

Yeah....I'll just stick to Saint's Row from now on. GTA has lost me as a franchise.

That's not even close to anything the video was stating.

Yes, please stick to saints row. Starting to see why people don't appreciate the work that went into that game either.

Honestly, who cares how much work went into it? You're not buying the labor, you're buying the results of that labor.

Heroic army of Escapist critics and commentators forming up to face the hordes of GTA5 fanboys, flame shields in hand, like the soldiers at Thermopylae.

Look around and realize there aren't any fanboys.

OuendanCyrus:
I have yet to hear a reasonable response when I ask people why they enjoy the GTA series

then pull your fingers out of your ears. there are many things to like about the series, maybe just not things for YOU to like.

but thats cool, one mans brilliance is another mans squishy, rancid poo

trty00:
There Escapist, is that enough 'fanboy rage' for you?

i find it deliciously arrogant that people try to preempt fanboy bitching by bitching about fanboys

Having just completed the main story I can definitely agree about the plot threads and the lack of overarching thread.

Not sure where he's getting the "poorly written characters" from. It's a satire of crime, not an accurate criminal sim aiming for Oscar-quality dialogue.

Oh wait, hold on. I wish there was a mission in GTAV where you rob a bank by following this plan: "We walk in, wave the gun around, and leave very rich men."

ProfessorLayton:

JamesStone:
Aaaaaahhh, the scout of the fanboy rage finally arrived. Finally gave up on trying to connect to GTA Online mate?

And I won't even bother going into your affirmations (it IS a matter of opinion, a very poorly justified opinion in your case) besides the glitchy part. You do know it's purposefully glitchy? Because they're taking down a simulation? And creating these glitches? Let me guess, it gets glitchier closer to Rift Events [rolls eyes].

It's funny how you call me a fanboy. First off, this is the first GTA game I've ever purchased. I've never even played any of the other ones for more than half an hour. I liked Red Dead Redemption and LA Noire, but that would hardly make me a fanboy. You won't even go into anything else I say because absolutely nothing I said would have pinned me as a fanboy, you're just looking for a random insult. I also haven't even tried connecting to GTA online yet because I knew it was going to be a mess ever since they announced that there would be an online mode.

And really? Purposefully glitchy? I wasn't even talking about the graphical glitches. I'm not stupid. I'm talking about the fact that sometimes cars would literally run me off the road for no reason. There were times when I saw a car stuck under a semi freaking out until they both exploded. Cars were stuck in trees. Bullets often simply didn't connect. You can't just say "well it's a simulation so it's supposed to happen!" And you call me a fanboy.

Oh no, my dear friend. I called you a scout. Scout. Scoooooooooooooooooout. Fanboys do then to present better points. A scout of fanboy rage simply marks the territory to be desolated by the mindless sheep. Sometimes it works, others not so much. But you're still just a scout.

Second, I wasn't talking about visual glitches either. Notice how most of the glitches happen inside the simulation. I have experienced some of the same glitches as you, with higher frequency at the endgame, but the Zinyak battle? None.

Third, your points are very subjective and shallow. I did not wish to discuss them for that reason and still don't. I'm just calling you out on it because you need some actual arguments to support those claims.

So, in brief: "Bland unlikeable characters, non-existent story, has better driving than GTA4."
And that is why I don't make any purchasing decisions based on Zero Punctuation, or Yahtzee in general, because it didn't tell me a whole lot about the game.

Well, maybe GTA5 will blow my mind a year from now when the more whiny nutters vocal fans have shut their collective yaps so I can form an honest, actual opinion on the game without having to deal with the Ordo Hereticus mob mentality.

Chicago Ted:

JamesStone:

Aaaaaahhh, the scout of the fanboy rage finally arrived. Finally gave up on trying to connect to GTA Online mate?

And I won't even bother going into your affirmations (it IS a matter of opinion, a very poorly justified opinion in your case) besides the glitchy part. You do know it's purposefully glitchy? Because they're taking down a simulation? And creating these glitches? Let me guess, it gets glitchier closer to Rift Events [rolls eyes].

SOMEONE HAS ARRIVED THAT DISAGREES WITH THE REVIEW?! HE MUST BE A FANBOY! HEY EVERYONE LOOK A FANBOY! LET'S INSULT HIM WITHOUT ADDRESSING ANY OF HIS POINT!

Seriously, posts like this are by far the least valued posts on this thread. More people have come on here to make posts decrying fans and saying how up in arms the fans will get over this video then people actually responding to the video in either a positive or negative aspect. Then you find the first post that has some valid criticism to the content of the video, and suddenly you attempt to blur it out by attacking the person behind the post, shooting off uncalled for insults, and then dismissing the point of it entirely. There's a word for that type of attitude you know.

Fanboy.

Take off the blinders that are knee jerk reactions, and actually reread what was stated in that post. Then please go and address some of the points, and discuss what you disagree with him on. Otherwise you come off far, far worse than what else is being said around you.

ProfessorLayton:
Snip

I have to agree with you here Layton, this video did seem pretty shallow to me as well, though you put it better than I could so I won't really reiterate much of what I agree with you on. I will say though that I would have liked to here what specific points in the game he felt were the ones that stood out poorly, but it's pretty vague when it comes down to it.

I agree with him that I was disappointed on the heists and how to plan them, some additional steps would have been nice, and perhaps ways of helping improve your potential heist members stats outside of the actual heists themselves would have been good (Say you go robbing liquor stores with them or something), but I'm not sure what exactly he's going on about when he says they fail you for no reason and such. I mean if you got in the wrong car when trying to leave or something like that, you probably failed because you weren't in the vehicle with the loot and would have left it behind or something like that. Same with not following the route and the like. I mean, how often do you watch a heist movie or something where the entire thing is based off of improvising the next step. Almost all start with a carefully laid out plan that is then attempted to be executed as close as possible.

Also, going back and watching his GTA IV review, I find it funny that he comments on other videos about companies trying to squeeze the most of what they can out of game franchises until they're dead, but then, years later, goes on and attempts to sell the exact same joke again and again about the numbering in games. But I really went back more to compare what he said now to what he said then, and I find it funny how he's complaining about some of the opposites back then. Such as when he criticized GTA IV for being bogged down by tutorials, but then flips on GTA V for not holding your hand enough when given new stuff to do.

Notice how I didn't even defended the review. Yes it was shallow and not one of Yathzee's best works (on of the worst actually, in my opinion). I agree with his points about the review, but his arguments about it AND Saints Row are based on subjective opinions which he tries to pass out as facts. I highly dislike these types of arguments so I called him on it.

Third, I never called him a fanboy. I called him a scout. As in, the guys who present misinformation by the way of an unsubstantial edgy opinion, and unnintencionally flare the discussion to REAL fanboys to come and trash the place. Sometimes it works, others doesn't. But he's no fanboy. He's a scout of fanboy rage. Different. Very different.

I think they got the balance just right with V, having gone too far towards the serious narrative side of things with IV. They kept the parts that worked while returning a bit of the crazy and the zany aspects from 3. I've had a great time with the substantial amount of dialog that the three main characters have, and the different ways each of them experiences the world.

The world itself is the centerpiece for me, which Yahtzee seems to dismiss as 'just stuff to do', but it's supposed to be a sandbox and it actually has some sandboxy aspects to it. Also, and maybe it's because I've spent a fair amount of time around Los Angeles, but man they nailed the look and feel of certain parts of it so well that it's uncanny.

Yes, I find the supercops a little annoying, but at the same time it felt like they were almost too easy to dismiss in recent entries in the series. This does make you less likely to simply mow down people unless you're planning on a proper rampage, and then you just need to have a good escape route and hiding place staked out.

I played and enjoyed Saints Row 3 by the way, but sometimes it's nice to have a game that isn't just too outlandish and over the top.

Looking through the comments and once again there's more posts talking about irrational fanboy rage than actual irrational fanboy rage.

Can someone please explain this fucking phenomenon to me? Maybe if I know the mentality behind it, it won't irk me so damn much every time I see it.

Different strokes for different folks, but holy gremlins does this game ever polarize gamers.

I hated GTA 4 so much, but playing as Michael feels like playing GTA 3/Vice City again. Playing as Franklin feels like playing San Andreas. Playing as Trevor feels like (finally being represented as a crazy Canadian and) playing Lynch from "Kane and Lynch". I see a universe paying tribute and expanding on what worked well in the past (which is what a sequel is supposed to do!) Playing this game feels like watching and controlling a gangster movie (satirizing reality), and it is tremendously entertaining.

I wish Rockstar was ready for the apps and online content, but just how ready can you be for that? I thought it was common practice as far as online mechanics go to make an educated guess and then clean up the mess. The Social Club works fine though.

Fanboys should never be acknowledged, but on the other hand I get why they're pissed. No one is being objective here.
If I didn't see passed most of this hipster/intellectual/anti-consumerist bullshit, I would feel the bad reviews were misrepresenting and lazy too.

-"Poorly written" narratives and story. I take it none of you pay attention to the conversations in the car? Maybe you skip the cutscenes too?
Here's a quick sum (at my 30% completion). Michael is a deluded sociopath who is so bored/disillusioned that he subconsciously seeks excitement. Franklin is aghast/ashamed at his background and wants to excel like Michael did when he was younger. Trevor is the most traumatized of them all. Aside from being hurt and isolated his entire life because of his mental health, he is desperate for humanity/companionship and will continue to numb the pain with whatever he can until death. You could almost say all three represent each other at the different stages/levels of criminal life: aspiring, reminiscing, and then pushing for death.

Just WHAT were you expecting? Bioshock:Infinite metaphysics? Crime doesn't pay? As if gangster stories were for the culturally and morally refined. As if these GAMES were.

-"Not fun/boring". If you think guns, explosions, and murder isn't fun then you were biased from the start. You refused to review GTA as GTA. What were you doing playing this game?? The biggest piss-off for fanboys is probably that you were given a podium for an opinion that was neither constructive or worthwhile. Pretty much a paid troll who was trolling for page views.

Your opinion isn't wrong, but when it's missing information and context, then yes, expect the torch and pitchforks from the extremists. Your "meh" has the potential to be offensive (as retarded as that sounds). People will get absolutely butt-hurt about anything and everything nowadays.

The sales are going to hit 2 billion this month, and you're lying to yourself if you think this is solely because of hype. The ones that DO exist on hype are the ones that are released annually. Notice how those games are forgotten and discarded just as quickly.

GTA V has my vote for game of the year, even though I tenderly favour XCOM:EU and Hotline Miami.

I actually find V a waste of money, which I sadly bought on release day. Not worth the money at all if you ask me. Yes I'm dead serious.

Heists where fun and 2 out of 3 chars interesting but that's about it.

I know for a fact they can program planes to be easy to fly, the same way I know games can program sniper rifles to not bounce around like an epileptic on a trampoline. But they want to "simulate difficulty" and apparently, shitty controls are how they do that.

Evonisia:

Lieju:
The thing I've noticed in all the advertisements is that they are all about a blonde chick in a bikini. I don't even know who she is (maybe the daughter of one the the playable characters?), but it seems whoever is behind that decision doesn't think the protagonists are appealing enough to sell the game.

She's not even a character in the game, unless she's just one of the random NPCs. I guess just showing a pair of breasts will attract people to your game.

That's a good point. The week before GTA V came out, that ad with that woman taking a selfie with her phone was all over Cracked.com, making me think I accidentally clicked onto IGN.
Now about today's video, Yahtzee didn't include GTA London:1969 among the other games that apparently use Resident Evil math. That last bit with the soldier on the stretcher caught me off guard. As for complaining about the characters lack of likability, Yahtzee is the kind of gamer who likes it when narrative and gameplay seamlessly work together. Perhaps he thought that the player characters (especially Trevor) were too one-note to be compelling enough to enjoy controlling. I know their psychotic personalities fit with the kind of mindless violence expected in a GTA game, but Yahtzee thought if Rockstar was trying to cram in extra depth, they failed at it.

ProfessorLayton:

ImBigBob:
Yeah, I knew you were going to hate it. Further justification for me to not buy it! Plus I still need to get Saints Row 4.

I can tell you firsthand that Saints Row 4 is absolute garbage and not even accidentally good. It's not even a matter of opinion. It's glitchy, boring, has absolutely no sense of pacing, most of the content is literally copy-pasted from Saints Row 3, the missions are insultingly easy, and the superpowers simply break the game.

...K, I found Saints Row 4 very fun. I loved the powers and enjoyed the tone and humor.

Why is it not a matter of opinion?

ProfessorLayton:
I mean seriously, let's do a play-by-play. The first 45 seconds is complaining about the advertising. Then he complains about the fact that it's named GTA V even though there are more than 5 games, a joke he's made several times already about the same series. Then he complains about GTA IV. Next he describes the characters, saying they're all poorly written but gives no actual examples of them being poorly written other then that Franklin is whiny and misinterpreting Michael's overall character. After that he brings up the problem of linearity within the mission structure and the poor flight controls which I definitely agree with. The rest of the review he talks about not being able to play online yet and then saying it was ok but not great. That's just simply weak criticism and it's really disappointing.

Fully agree with this. The man wastes too much time with critical filler before jumping in with a couple of poorly justified observations and some decent gameplay nitpicking. And then he's almost sorry to admit he found the game fun.

Look, I haven't played the game, I'm not a GTA fanboy, I've never owned one past San Andreas. But this here review is poorly coined.

Why is it that I found the soldier bit at the end the most hilarious part of the review? I actually laughed out loud at that, which hasn't happened in a while.

OT: Fair review, and though I think the heist missions deserve a bit bigger commendation (going from "drive fat bloke here" to "put on bulletproof armour and rip shit up with a minigun"), it really is just people doing stuff. The solution: jetpacks.

trty00:
I thought GTA V had excellent writing and characterization and voice acting. I thought Los Santos and Blaine County were both fully realized worlds that were massive in scope and had tons of things to do. I thought the story was slick and well paced and it felt like the only GTA story that didn't have any unnecesary padding. I thought that Rockstar finally nailed the driving mechanics, and every hobby/activity was fleshed out. Quite frankly, V is my favorite GTA game, despite it not being totally infallible (Fuck you super cops. Fuck. You.).

There Escapist, is that enough 'fanboy rage' for you?

Quoted for truth. I honestly had an awesome time in the game. I don't know why everyone has a stick up their arse about "scripted" games.

Perhaps I'm easily pleased but I was incredibly engaged in the story and found Michael and Trevor's relationship utterly fascinating.

Have I become the lowest common denominator in liking this game? GTA fans call out for less serious in their GTA, they get less serious and now they moan it's too disjointed and scripted? Who are the whiny fanboys now, huh?

BX3:
Looking through the comments and once again there's more posts talking about irrational fanboy rage than actual irrational fanboy rage.

Can someone please explain this fucking phenomenon to me? Maybe if I know the mentality behind it, it won't irk me so damn much every time I see it.

There were angry hordes of fanboys in the comments of Greg Tito's review calling for his head and hurling death threats at his family for giving GTA V 3.5 stars out of 5. I'll say that again to drive it home : 3.5/5 That's the kind of score I was happy to get for a score on homework or a test in school.

The scream at the end is creepypasta material...

I agree about the heists. I was expecting Rainbow 6 style heist planning and the ability to heist anything, not just the mission buildings. But mostly I was looking forward to the Rainbow 6 style planning. That would have made this game so much better.

Goliath100:
I'm getting really tired of this, especially when professionals do it to. What others exactly?

Far Cry 3 is a great example. Sure, you can run around this huge island, but why would you? The only reason to explore is to find radio towers, which just reveal more of the map, and take over bases. I guess there's hunting too but nothing like GTA. Assassin's Creed is another example, where the only side missions just give you money and the only thing you use money on is buying things that give you more money.

MinionJoe:
Ah! Thank you. That does explain why you don't miss all of the side activities that were in IV that were stripped out of V, like pool and bowling.

That's true, I can't because I have nothing to compare it to other than the poker in Red Dead. However, I don't see how that could make or break a game purchase. Didn't people hate being constantly called by their cousin to go bowling? That being said, there are plenty of random filler things like tennis and golf. So it's not like they simply removed filler activities, just replaced them with other types that were more flavorful.

JamesStone:
Oh no, my dear friend. I called you a scout. Scout. Scoooooooooooooooooout. Fanboys do then to present better points. A scout of fanboy rage simply marks the territory to be desolated by the mindless sheep. Sometimes it works, others not so much. But you're still just a scout.

Second, I wasn't talking about visual glitches either. Notice how most of the glitches happen inside the simulation. I have experienced some of the same glitches as you, with higher frequency at the endgame, but the Zinyak battle? None.

Third, your points are very subjective and shallow. I did not wish to discuss them for that reason and still don't. I'm just calling you out on it because you need some actual arguments to support those claims.

So you insult me for no reason and still refuse to back up any claim whatsoever other than the fact that you agree with me that Saints Row IV is glitchy. Lazy game design hiding under the guise of "the glitches are a feature" is still lazy game design. I don't understand how having a random AI car stuck in a tree or the physics engine bug out and send me flying through the air when I hit a curb is excusable just because we're claiming that it's in a simulation. I had bugs outside of the simulation as well, mind you, so even if every single random exploding semi was completely done on purpose within the context of the game there were many problems I had outside of that.

Explain to me why my points are invalid and drop that presumptuous, snarky attitude and then I'll take you seriously. I have arguments for why Saints Row IV is a terrible game and if you want me to elaborate on any of them I'd be more than willing to.

-Dragmire-:

...K, I found Saints Row 4 very fun. I loved the powers and enjoyed the tone and humor.

Why is it not a matter of opinion?

You can find it fun but that certainly doesn't make it a good game. I loved Prototype for the superpowers but I'll be the first to admit the game is trash. I found Eat Lead hilarious but I know the actual game itself is horrible. I'll also say that when I played Saints Row IV I was laughing until I could barely breathe but that doesn't make it good.

You know, I like the game, but I have to totally agree. Still a fun game though with typical funny writing.

And boobs.

Banzaiman:
Why is it that I found the soldier bit at the end the most hilarious part of the review? I actually laughed out loud at that, which hasn't happened in a while.

OT: Fair review, and though I think the heist missions deserve a bit bigger commendation(going from "drive fat bloke here" to "put on bulletproof armour and rip shit up with a minigun), it really is just people doing stuff. The solution: jetpacks.

Probably because it was the funniest part of the review...

OT: Haven't played this game but never been too big on GTA to begin with...except Vice City...God, I love Vice city. Anyways, the people who are crying about Yahtzee, or crying about how fanboys are going to whine about Yahtzee (inadvertently being fanboys themselves) are forgetting something important about ZP. The biggest factor in a ZP review is humour, not legitimate criticism. Yahtzee needs to make fun of the game, so he only talks about the worst things in it. You want to whine about how he didn't mention Gameplay? CONGRATULATIONS! It means the game has good gameplay! So stop complaining about Yahtzee never commenting on the good in games. He only does that with games he finds OUTSTANDING, not good.

ProfessorLayton:

-Dragmire-:

...K, I found Saints Row 4 very fun. I loved the powers and enjoyed the tone and humor.

Why is it not a matter of opinion?

You can find it fun but that certainly doesn't make it a good game. I loved Prototype for the superpowers but I'll be the first to admit the game is trash. I found Eat Lead hilarious but I know the actual game itself is horrible. I'll also say that when I played Saints Row IV I was laughing until I could barely breathe but that doesn't make it good.

I suppose we differ in opinion of what makes a good game, I base the quality of a game based on the enjoyment I had with it. Naturally I knock it for faults like crashes and lag spikes but if the experience is good enough, I'll still call it a good game.

Banzaiman:
Why is it that I found the soldier bit at the end the most hilarious part of the review? I actually laughed out loud at that, which hasn't happened in a while.

OT: Fair review, and though I think the heist missions deserve a bit bigger commendation(going from "drive fat bloke here" to "put on bulletproof armour and rip shit up with a minigun), it really is just people doing stuff. The solution: jetpacks.

Naturally, we can't be sure, but I'm willing to bet that Rockstar will do it. Just a feeling though.

ProfessorLayton:
You can find it fun but that certainly doesn't make it a good game.

Glad you clarified that, but at the same time why isn't something fun 'good'? Just curious here, because a lot of people define a game that is fun as being a game that is good. If you don't measure a game's quality by the fun you're having, what do you measure it by?

I too was worried property buying would be simply to burn cash but since it adds a few short missions, it has more of a point than "have a lot of cash, buy this to get more"

But as someone else said, this game has very polarizing opinions on it, from the love em/hate em protagonists to the huge world itself. At least it shows that the heroes aren't tortured souls who only want to do the right thing right before throwing grenades off the highway to see how big a pileup you can cause.

I did like how the game was more challenging (I died a lot more than usual, I can beat GTA IV without dying once if I'm careful)

Interesting review.

That ending bit about WWII was funnier then it should have been...

OT: I don't think Yahtzee will have to worry about getting flamed by GTA fans until this goes to Youtube. Escapists don't flame, they just make dry jokes about flame shields, use memes "ironically", and go "ugh, that is SO blase'" everytime someone mentions a game made after 2002.

I never really played GTA. Doesn't sound fun now, more than any time...

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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