Zero Punctuation: Grand Theft Auto 5

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

-Dragmire-:
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:
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 just try to look at things objectively because "I had fun" isn't a very good reason to recommend a game. I personally love RPGs, but I'm not about to recommend Persona 3 to someone who only plays Call of Duty or something. Whenever I try to review or recommend something, I think about the strengths and weaknesses of the game rather than my personal opinion.

It's something that's quantifiable rather than something that differs from person to person. I can count how many glitches I see in a game. I'm able to observe texture popping and poor AI. I can tell when a story doesn't make sense. However, I can't tell you whether or not you'll enjoy it because I'm not you.

bigfatcarp93:
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...

I think you nailed it on the head. This totally applies to pretty much any review on the Escapist unless politics and gender issues are brought up. Then oh-boy! Watch the comments count soar!

ProfessorLayton:
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.

And this is my problem with the "other...ain't gonna name anything" exemple. Neither of those games are the first thing coming to mind when comparing GTA with somehing. Personally I was thinking of Just Cause and Saint's Row.

Goliath100:
And this is my problem with the "other...ain't gonna name anything" exemple. Neither of those games are the first thing coming to mind when comparing GTA with somehing. Personally I was thinking of Just Cause and Saint's Row.

Ok, well in that case Saint's Row has absolutely nothing to do of value outside of side quests and those don't really affect anything at all. I was just talking about any open world game. But yeah if you wanna talk about GTA clones, Mercenaries only gives you things to blow up and Mafia II... well, Mafia II doesn't really give you anything at all. I can't speak about Just Cause because despite owning both I haven't actually played them.

Those are all "other" open world games with maps that feel more empty than Grand Theft Auto V.

I expect Shadow Warrior next (two) week(s). The game is incredibly awesome, as in, it might be one of the very best shooters this year and one of the best I've played in the last few years... and that's saying a lot.

Ow! Why is this room so bright?

image

Oh, I see. No wonder the picture is blurry.

More on topic, I still hang on to my copy of GTA: San Andreas, and I can't really justify an upgrade. Maybe next time!

Andy Shandy:
Sounds like I was right to avoid this, for the moment at least. Also sounds about on the same sort of wavelength as Tito's review too. Interesting to see that it hasn't had the same amount of fanboy rage about it.

I think thats pretty simple. The escapist review is connected to metacritic, zero punctuation is not. :)

OT: I like the game, its pretty damn good. Great on a technical level (again) but not really trying anything new or having a great memorable story (its just good). In other words - great game but no where near "goty" or any other kind of weird award. Certainly not "game of the generation" like many people seem to bandy about.

Oh also the heists were massively over-hyped, good lord. Probably the best missions of the lot, but your input is much more limited than the marketing would have you believe.

ProfessorLayton:

-Dragmire-:
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:
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 just try to look at things objectively because "I had fun" isn't a very good reason to recommend a game. I personally love RPGs, but I'm not about to recommend Persona 3 to someone who only plays Call of Duty or something. Whenever I try to review or recommend something, I think about the strengths and weaknesses of the game rather than my personal opinion.

It's something that's quantifiable rather than something that differs from person to person. I can count how many glitches I see in a game. I'm able to observe texture popping and poor AI. I can tell when a story doesn't make sense. However, I can't tell you whether or not you'll enjoy it because I'm not you.

There are plenty of games that are bugless but I wouldn't recommend because I don't find them fun. I don't think I get the info I personally would want from a review that you do.

ProfessorLayton:
Ok, well in that case Saint's Row has absolutely nothing to do of value outside of side quests and those don't really affect anything at all.

How do you define "value" in game?

-Dragmire-:
There are plenty of games that are bugless but I wouldn't recommend because I don't find them fun. I don't think I get the info I personally would want from a review that you do.

I'm not just talking about glitches, I'm talking about content.

Andy Shandy:

Carpenter:

Andy Shandy:
Sounds like I was right to avoid this, for the moment at least. Also sounds about on the same sort of wavelength as Tito's review too. Interesting to see that it hasn't had the same amount of fanboy rage about it.

Did you read Tito's review? It wasn't "fanboy rage" and was well justified considering Tito gets paid to review games and he makes a review that does nothing but complain about the story, state things that are demonstrably false (I explained this in the "worst reviews" thread if you care to know what I am talking about) and then ends it by giving it a good score.

If he didn't like the game, that's valid, but doing nothing but complain about one aspect of the game and then giving it a good score shows a whole new degree to unprofessionalism that I had only seen on Gamefaqs user reviews before that.

But yes, call it "fanboy rage" and say that people were just "mad it didn't get a perfect score" because apparently strawman arguments are the norm on the Escapist forums and from the Escapist staff.

Yes, I did read it, and I'll call it fanboy rage because that's what quite a bit of it was, new users signing up specifically to whine that their precious GTA V didn't get a perfect score. Although I will admit at least it wasn't as bad as what it was over at Gamespot.

No, you didn't read it, or you are purposefully lying to defend your precious escapist (see how easy that is?) and if they were complaining about the score, why? It wasn't a bad score.
If it was about the score, why were most of the "whiners" quoting the written review?

Bottom line, Tito spent the entire review complaining about the story and stating things that were demonstrably false (like the live invader section) and then ended it by giving it a good score, as if he's completely missing the point of doing the review.

It was unprofessional.

The Escapist staff and people like you rely on the "they just whining cus of score" strawman because you have nothing real to use to defend the review or address the actual complaints.

ajapam:
GTAV is easily my favorite entry of the series, but I agree with a lot of the points made here. Basically the same story as every other time he reviewed a game I liked (except for the Last of Us, but I think he reviewed that after reading a plot summary on wikipedia and watching a couple of gameplay videos.)

People will probably rage anyway. GTA is a series that gets stupidly high praise even when it's clunky and boring

I love how the people pre defending ZP are talking about "fanboy rage."

Yes, clunky and boring. Everyone buying and enjoying the game is wrong, your analysis of the game is quite original.

If you don't like the games, that's fine. This whole idea that you have to tear something down because you don't enjoy it is pathetic. If you want to rip on a game, at least use an original thought or provide some level of entertainment, otherwise you just seem like another kid latching onto a person like Yahtzee because they can't form their own opinion about anything.

Goliath100:
How do you define "value" in game?

Quests that mean something. I don't consider driving around spraying shit on houses to be very important to the plot or game. In Grand Theft Auto V, one of the collectibles unlocks a mission after you collect them all. Doing running races increases your stamina. Doing car races increases your driving skill. Certain side missions give extra insight to the active character's personality. When you run around the world of GTA V, there are hidden secrets and random encounters all the time, whether it's someone being mugged or a hidden ghost. The world feels different at every place you visit. When you're in the city, you feel the life of the city around you with pedestrians everywhere and cops chasing AI criminals. When you're on top of a mountain, you can look into the distance at the city and just take in the scenery. Compare that to Far Cry where every location is just pretty much jungle or Saints Row where every location is just city and the side missions in both don't affect the story or your understanding of the characters.

Thanks for posting Yahtzee : ) Good point about how it is open sandbox yet missions drop that theme and go in the opposite direction.

So back to the heart of it, three, three characters and I could not find a reason to care about them. It is surprising about characters and motivation. Just like reading a story, if there is no connection to the characters most people will stop reading, it is entertainment fiction after all.

I kept at it trying to find something redeeming about the game but mission after mission, it just did not click with me.

MinionJoe:

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.

"Stripped out" implies that they were there to begin with.

I can't believe there are still people here that know so little about game design that they think they started with GTA 4 and just started removing features.

Same thing that always came up with GTA 4, the game that had a bunch of people complaining about how pointless and boring mini games like bowling and pool were. They acted like Rockstar just took san andreas, turned the "graphics" dial and started removing vehicles and gameplay elements.

GTA never caries over every feature from the previous game. I did play GTA 4, I loved the game, but I don't miss the minigames because my copy of GTA 4 still exists. I'm glad they had some new games (which are actually a lot more in depth) to play around with like golf and tennis because having the exact same activities and gameplay that was in the last game would be so boring and pointless.

I buy GTA because they change the game with every sequel. I don't understand why people complain about features not being carried over when their copies of SA and 4 still exist.

IamLEAM1983:

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.

I honestly mean no offense by this and I am saying this without a hint of hostility or sarcasm, if you think games like GTA 4 or 5 or even Modern Warfare are "realistic" then you seriously need to leave the house a bit more.

It's a game. It may be designed to look or feel "realistic" but nothing about those games is actually realistic. People don't fly back when shot like in COD and especially not like in GTA 4 or 5. People don't take gunshots to the chest and continue to drive around and shoot. People don't just charge through a battlefield massacring the "enemy" like it's nothing.

I really wish somebody would do a truly realistic war/crime game to illustrate to certain people how ridiculous it is to call those games realistic.
Real life also isn't grey and dry. If you consider "realism" to be synonymous with "Dry" and "boring" then you may have serious depression and should probably look into that before worrying about what games you will buy next.
If you feel you need games to escape from reality, maybe examine and try to make changes to your reality.

Again, I mean all of that without a hint of hostility, the fact that people consider those games "realistic" really gives credence to the idea that letting kids play games too much may be affecting their perception of the world in a negative way.

I can't help but remember the review of "Red Dead Redemtion". RockStar doesn't make a games quite for the story telling. They make games that are big boxes of toys you can go play with.

The story is just an advertisement for why you should play with the toys. Get a better familiarity.
Compared to "Saints Row" games I am aware that the GTA franchise doesn't have the same level of irony, or retro game feel that a lot of game reviewers consider "cool". But I have been playing GTA V for a while now, and I must say that I find it very good.

RockStar have looked at what made their different instalments work, and evolved thouse.

GTA IV has a lot of possibilities, but most of them mondane.
Red Dead Redemtion has random generated excitement keeping the enviroment fun to explore
GTA V has posibilities (most of them fun and new all the time) and random generating excitement. So We have all the posibilities to keeping out toys fun and fresh for a much longer time, that what other games provide, and for that I salute the GTA V game!

Sorry if bad english. It's my third language.

I haven't tried the game but from what i've seen i know that i will hate the gameplay. It just seems so constrained and linear, you aren't really given much to do, often it's just one single task with one single solution: "go there, pick that up, shoot him", atleast if GTA IV and the first 2 hours of V is anything to go by. Aside from that i kinda hate Hausers writing style, so yeah i think i'll pass.

I'd much prefer it if the goal of these games were to just do crazy stuff and escape from the cops, that's always the moments i'm having the most fun with GTA games. They could make a kick-ass arcade game out of this, or maybe something like Driver only less constrained and less broken.

ProfessorLayton:
snip

That don't answer the question. How do you define "valuable actions" in game?

Pink Gregory:

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.

Sometimes, yes they do. Problem is, even if it's rare, a comic issue is short, a video game is much longer. It's more comparable to an episodic series than a single comic book.

A game as big as GTA 5 is not comparable to a single comic issue and as a person that's been playing the game a lot I can tell you that there's nothing inconsistent about the dialog or characters, I honestly didn't even know the dialog was written by more than one person.

All to often people confuse character growth with a character being inconsistent.

I do agree, committee often ruins good ideas, but the characters and story are dictated by creative figureheads that have a passion for the series.

Yeah I didn't know three people were credited with the writing either, but I feel there's a lesson in that about not just taking what Yahtzee says on faith. The guy is great at what he does, what he does is not game reviews, it's comedic cynical analysis of games.

I know people will accuse me of being a "fanboy" but the fact is, I'm a fan. I like to defend things I enjoy when I see people making dishonest or unfair criticisms. I am fine with people not liking a game I like, what bugs me is when people that haven't played the game are turned away because of completely dishonest things being said by "trustworthy sources" or those things being spread around as if it's known fact.

The game has plenty of real flaws, but that's because it's massive. They could have made a game like COD that would have little to no glitches but what keeps me interested in Rockstar is their ability to take chances. Changing the GTA formula with almost every sequel is a huge risk that too many companies refuse to take anymore.

Just wanted to say that, as the "fanboy rage" term is thrown around a lot here.

Goliath100:
That don't answer the question. How do you define "valuable actions" in game?

Things that advance the story, make your characters better, or learn about your characters' personalities or learn about the world you're in. That's exactly what I just said and I really don't know how else to explain it.

mike1921:

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.

People that don't work ask "who cares how much work went into this"

I care how much work went into it when the quality of the product is pretty good. People dug into the use of symbolism and themes in Spec Ops the line only because that game made it very obvious, it doesn't mean that games like GTA and SR didn't put hidden symbolic meaning into portions of the game or the entire game itself.

The results of that labor is a quality game in the case of SR and GTA so I don't really get what your comment was supposed to mean here.

If you don't like the game, that's fine, but people acting like one game is objectively more "fun" because it has a dildo in it is just kind of sad to see here. SR is a lot of fun, but they didn't make "fun" a higher priority than Rockstar did with GTA. If SR was made to be nothing but arcadey stupid fun then they wouldn't have given it a story in the first place.

ImBigBob:
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.

You do realise SR4 was the same thing as Blood Dragon, right? Wasn't meant to be a full game on its own but a small little redress of SR3 that picked up more momentum than they were expecting it to?

bobleponge:
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.

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.

It's kind of a "become the thing you hate" type of thing.

Reminds me of the first trailer for RE5 being released and the capcom boards instantly going "people are going to call this racist" with other posters going "people calling this racist? RE2 had white zombies!" and suddenly everyone was acting like they were fighting back the horrible PC police. Suddenly people were making youtube videos about how "it's so not racist" directed at a group of people that didn't even exist considering nobody at the time called it racist.

Have yet to see anyone calling RE5 racist, despite the fact that it was released and we found out that it portrayed African natives as leaf skirt and tribal mask wearing, spear throwing, growling beasts. Yes they were "infected" but I think the people that used that defense (before any complaints were made mind you) don't understand how symbolism works. You are still depicting Africans as savage tribesmen out for the white man's blood. Don't try to use the partner as a defense, she's a slightly more subtle stereotype. I believe her last line in the game was "that is for my fallen ancestors" or something like that.

Now with that in mind, I am kind of wondering if RE4 and 5 were meant to be exploring the idea of xenophobia by portraying "foreigners" as they may be imagined by a racist white guy that has never left his homeland.
This fits RE4 perfectly on every level, but 5 comes off as more "invade Africa, horrible savage land we need to free from oppression" propaganda.
That's just my opinion though.

This is one of the more realistic reviews he's ever done. Its not overly troll-y nor is he gushing over GTAV. Yatzhee seems to have the same reaction to this game I did. A solid, resolute, proud 'what else can I play?'
Not that its a terrible game, mind. I just was so f-ing bored I stopped playing after about 3 hours. My friend who had clocked in 100+hours was flabbergasted until I got out D3 for xbox, and we had a golly good time!

Simply put, GTA is now incredibly bland. It was as basic and by the numbers as these games get.

cthulhuspawn82:
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.

The planes were easy enough to fly for me.

Yes they could program them to be "easier to fly" but they could have also programmed the game with more hand holding auto aim and missile bullets, it just wouldn't be very challenging and would probably feel pretty soulless.

You exaggerate the turbulence you experience in planes (even with the lowest possible flying skill) that I have to wonder if you even played the game.
On maxed out shooting skill your sniper rifle doesn't wave around in the slightest and stays perfectly steady.
Shitty controls? Can you give an example of what you mean? Are you aware that the other two things you mentioned have nothing to do with the "controls" of the game?
You are exaggerating these things so much that it makes me wonder if you even played the game before posting these complaints.

Barciad:
I think comparisons, not just with Saints Row IV, but also Skyrim are in order. Just how does one make games this big both balanced and with tightness and direction?

Good question. I think one way is to commit whole heartedly to a linear set up, with the open world acting as a backdrop or an occasional diversion (like in Arkham asylum/city or LA Noire). The other is to commit properly to the open world set up, and stop punishing the player with failure for slightly stepping out of some strict boundaries (like STALKER). Games like Skyrim and GTA fail at either, because they try to sell themselves on an open world but actually prefer to focus on some meagre, tightly scripted story.

Darth_Payn:

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.

Again, that's the strawman used by Escapist staff to frame the issue their way.

The complaints (I saw no death threats or threats against his family) were regarding the review itself, not the score. The score was a good score, but it was a good score tacked onto a review that did nothing but complain and state things about the game that are demonstrably false.

No matter how often I explain this, people still try to exaggerate the issue and discredit complaints by making up these ridiculous retelling of what really happened.
All it shows is that you feel the need to defend the Escapist but have no real points to defend it with so you rely on dishonest tactics.

Sgt. Sykes:
Hmm okay, he didn't like it that much I guess.

One thing I don't understand though, why is Saints Row considered 'fun' and the later GTA aren't? Because you can run around with a dildo and other wacky stuff? That's wacky. Not necessarily fun. I didn't play GTAV of course (having only a PC and stuff), but I definitely had tons more fun with GTA IV then SR2+3 combined and if GTA had the same stupid wacky humor everywhere, I'd like it less.

"Fun" is a relatively subjective term, so it's hard to quanitify but GTA IV was sluggish and chore-like. Saints Row was action packed. Even better, the action was well-designed. I mean, if sluggish controls and routine date requests are your idea of fun, then Godspeed.

One way GTA V is more fun (to me) is the way it doesn't require you to play five hours to get into things. It starts off fast and keeps a nice pace. It engaged me, something Niko's rather mundane beginnings couldn't do.

OuendanCyrus:
either they're very easily impressed/amused, or they have the mind of a teenager, or both.

Well, I am both.

But you know, I looked at your played games on XBL (since you were kind enough to link your GT), and I'm not really seeing much that would qualify as having "more" than that. And hell, the comparison of stuff to do with RDR just seems...Wrong. Flat out wrong.

But whatever. I'm not here to judge. I just find it weird.

But hey, I'm not particularly a fan of the GTA series. I played 3 mostly because everyone said I must, and the open world was a bit of a revolution at the time, so it was something I could appreciate. IV sucked ass in my opinion, highlighting ockstar's tendency for "ooh shiny" over substance, so I sort of get where you're coming from. But V? Well, they still haven't figured out how to do competent gameplay, you pretty much need aim assist to compensate for some of the worst firearm controls in the history of games, and there's an emphasis on shiny, but....

I actually like the story. Well, enjoyed is more the word. The thing is, that even though a lot of the characters are whiny, the sum ends up being better than the whole of its parts. I found myself engaged by the story threads. I actually spent a lot more time actually doing missions in this game than dicking around, which is relatively unqie for sandboxes. I got like 30 hours out of Saints Row 3, despite it being a 5 hour game, because I didn't touch most of the story missions for a loooooooong time.

I actually have to disagree with the GTA V reviews on the Escapist thus far haha
it's unusual because I've never been a fan of GTA (didn't like IV), and always preferred Saints Row and Sleeping Dogs, but GTA V surprised me. I guess I really liked the characters and their relationships (like legitimately enjoyed watching them), which seems to be the make or break aspect for this game.

that being said, I was disappointed that there weren't more to the heists. planning it out was cool, but I have to agree that leveling up your secondary crew members and stuff could have had more depth. most the missions apart from the first and last are just go in and shoot your way out loll

Zachary Amaranth:

I actually like the story. Well, enjoyed is more the word. The thing is, that even though a lot of the characters are whiny, the sum ends up being better than the whole of its parts. I found myself engaged by the story threads. I actually spent a lot more time actually doing missions in this game than dicking around, which is relatively unqie for sandboxes. I got like 30 hours out of Saints Row 3, despite it being a 5 hour game, because I didn't touch most of the story missions for a loooooooong time.

yeah I found myself actually rushing to do story missions because the characters were fun to watch. I didn't find them "whiny" but selfish oh hell yea very much so loll but I feel like it kinda fits for...well a freaking GTA game. Franklin was very much a Connor-esque paperboy being led along by everyone, but it was Lamar who annoyed the crap about me with his "homies for life" deal until the end when he redeemed himself haha. and I legitimately liked Michael whose struggles to reconnect with his family while staving off a midlife crisis was a nice touch and not something I've really seen before in a game. and I hated/loved Trevor because...well he's Trevor lol

Michael's justification for doing terrible things is the same justification Walter White uses, in my opinion. His life is boring, middle class and materialistic. Doing bank heists and pulling down peoples houses off cliffs is what makes him feel alive in his humdrum daily pointless life.
With Franklin, he wants to get out of the bad neighborhood and start a new life in a good area, with possibly a new family to bring up. Even if he does have to do bad things, he has to get out of that area.
With Trevor, he's just crazy. That's all.

That's just my opinion anyway.

Carpenter:

cthulhuspawn82:
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.

The planes were easy enough to fly for me.

Yes they could program them to be "easier to fly" but they could have also programmed the game with more hand holding auto aim and missile bullets, it just wouldn't be very challenging and would probably feel pretty soulless.

You exaggerate the turbulence you experience in planes (even with the lowest possible flying skill) that I have to wonder if you even played the game.
On maxed out shooting skill your sniper rifle doesn't wave around in the slightest and stays perfectly steady.
Shitty controls? Can you give an example of what you mean? Are you aware that the other two things you mentioned have nothing to do with the "controls" of the game?
You are exaggerating these things so much that it makes me wonder if you even played the game before posting these complaints.

My sniper rifle comment was more about how it works in games in general, here it doesn't seem so bad.

I still hate the flying controls and Yhahtzee seems to agree. Its a problem when I cant do things like "go forward" or "turn right" without nearly crashing the helicopter. In fact it seems as if the game is aware of its bad controls and tries to make "challenges" out of them. That's why you get points for things like flying under bridges. You don't get points for driving a car trough a tunnel because making the car go in a strait line without crashing into every wall isnt a challenge.

Buccura:
Despite not saying it's a bad game I'm sure this review will piss off plenty of GTA fanboys.

Fuck 'em.

Worgen:
Oddly enough I was hoping he would do Shadow Warrior this week. Maybe he will use it to cleanse his palate of the 'meh' that is his opinion of gtaV.

Actually, so was I. Being one of the miniscule number of people who didn't give a FUCK about GTAV, I'd actually forgotten he was likely to be doing it, so I was hoping he'd be doing Shadow Warrior too. I just hope it isn't a massive disappointment to him like Duke Nukem Forever was- it already starts with an automatic strike against it by being a reboot of a classic property with the exact same name as the original.

 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
Register for a free account here