Grand Theft Auto 5 Review - People Suck

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Grand Theft Auto 5 Review - People Suck

You can?t deny the game?s achievements, but the writing will push you away.

Read Full Article
 

Calibanbutcher

New member
Nov 29, 2009
1,691
0
0
Oh boy, not a perfect score, this is not gonna end well I fear.

EVERYONE, TAKE SHELTER.

EDIT:
Just one thing I forgot to add: So "killing not being fun but actually unpleasant" is NOT pushing the boundaries of video-games?
Are you saying that we should STRIVE for mindless run-and-gun violence in video-games instead of an immersive experience with a narrative that actually gives killing some wheight?
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Okay so if I get this right:

Its a GTA game full of Roman clones? The character no one liked? The character that drove a bowling ball shaped stake into the American titties of GTA IV?

So its basically like every GTA ever?
 

grey_space

Magnetic Mutant
Apr 16, 2012
455
0
0
That's a shame. And I was worried that the storyline would go that way. Still, worth a look I suppose in a couple of weeks but now I'm in no hurry for it.
 

Sassafrass

This is a placeholder
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
51,250
1
3
Country
United Kingdom
Oh boy, this is gonna end well.

Guys, just remember. A 3.5 out of 5 translates to a 7 out of 10. A 7 out of 10 is still pretty good, you know.
 

maniacfox

New member
Apr 16, 2012
2
0
0
I think you are missing the point, the original GTA was purely that. A scumbag criminal who would do anything for $$$, so in that sense, in my mind anyway, it is getting back to the original ethos of the game. As much as I like a good story I found the more cut scenes I had to sit through in GTA IV, the less I cared about the story. It's about balance, so I will be curious to see how this game pans out.
 

Phrozenflame500

New member
Dec 26, 2012
1,080
0
0
Ooh, 3.5

Incoming flame war, no opinions allowed.

Edit: So basically it's Saint's Row 3 but with none of the wackiness? That may not necessarily be a bad thing, may check out when PC version comes out.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Oh man, just criminals with no real motivation? Good review, that does ding it for me.

Considering how often I stop playing and just cruise around though, it may not concern me that much.
 

Teoes

Poof, poof, sparkles!
Jun 1, 2010
5,174
0
0
Interesting review, thanks. Hadn't expected it to be criticised in this manner. Will await hopeful PC release and then decide whether it's worth full-price purchase or is Steam sale material.

Jim Sterling gave it 9/10 on Destructoid, obviously Greg Tito doesn't know what he's talking about!!!
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
So, the game is fantastic, but you don't like that the characters are selfish and cruel.

What did these guys give GTA IV, the game whose main character spent the vast majority of his time murdering for hire, stating blatantly that he just wants money? I'm curious.

Also: DA2.
 

Andy Shandy

Fucked if I know
Jun 7, 2010
4,797
0
0
And a tough week for the mods gets even harder. XD

But the criticisms that you've made sound valid enough, so I can't particularly fault the score you gave it, at least until I get round to trying the game out myself.
 

Ranorak

Tamer of the Coffee mug!
Feb 17, 2010
1,946
0
0
Question, IS there some sort of Checkpoint system with the missions?

If not, I'm going to skip this game all together.
I HATE having to drive for 10 minutes to the same fucking place, with the same fucking dialogue, for the 4th fucking time, because I got shot while I was trying to find cover, but instead just bumped into stuff in GTA 4.
 

odolwa99

New member
May 11, 2013
32
0
0
How do you expect to tell a story about a good man when, at any given moment, the player has driven down a sidewalk in an oil tanker, ploughing through pedestrians and hurling molotovs at grannies on the other side of the street...?
 

StriderShinryu

New member
Dec 8, 2009
4,987
0
0
Thanks for an honest review, Greg. I, of course, haven't played the game yet but just seeing footage of it and hearing about it gave me the same impression you've come to after your time with the game. On a technical level, it may be a game I could see myself playing and enjoying, but I just don't want to play it. Take Rockstar's recent penchant for super dramatized and ponderous stories and add in characters I would never want to embody and you have a game that just doesn't interest me at all even if it has many other values.
 

Clovus

New member
Mar 3, 2011
275
0
0
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.
 

Roxas1359

Burn, Burn it All!
Aug 8, 2009
33,758
0
0
Sassafrass said:
Oh boy, this is gonna end well.

Guys, just remember. A 3.5 out of 5 translates to a 7 out of 10. A 7 out of 10 is still pretty good, you know.
This is the internet and the gaming industry my old friend, so obviously if anything is below a 9/10 then it's the worst game ever and the review was completely unfair and biased so the reviewer must be burned. XD

OT: I've been watching a playthrough of the game on Game Anyone for the last couple of days (the person doing it received a reviewer's copy of the game) and it does look decent, but then again I never really thought that GTA IV was a 9/10 game per say since the genre is not my cup of tea a lot of the time. This seems like a fair review overall really.

Now to run before the flames get any higher.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Greg Tito said:
Grand Theft Auto V Review - People Suck

You can?t deny the game?s achievements, but the writing will push you away.

Read Full Article
"Forcing players to murder people, not in a gamey "I killed you to complete a goal" way that defines this medium, but in a terrorizing and demeaning way, is not what will make videogames great. Rockstar had a chance to elevate, and they wasted it on portraying characters you don't want to spend five minutes with, let alone the hours it would take to play through the game's story."

"Forcing players to murder people, not in a gamey "I killed you to complete a goal" way that defines this medium, but in a terrorizing and demeaning way."

Because it's bad when a medium makes ending human life... not "gamey"?

I don't even care about the game - I'm not getting it - but this review is just poor. I can't respect an opinion when your biggest complaint is murdering people wasn't zaney enough. Maturity. Impact. Intensity. Horror. Discomfort. Morbid curiosity. Fuck all of them, they don't feel nice. -_-
 

BloodRed Pixel

New member
Jul 16, 2009
630
0
0
the videogame equivalent to phoney gangster rap.

"Mature" content in the imgination of 13 year old.

"And while the narrative is as morally reprehensible as ever, the underlying intelligence backing up the wanton immaturity manages to keep GTA V treading the line of acceptable."D'toid
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Calibanbutcher said:
Just one thing I forgot to add: So "killing not being fun but actually unpleasant" is NOT pushing the boundaries of video-games?

Are you saying that we should STRIVE for mindless run-and-gun violence in video-games instead of an immersive experience with a narrative that actually gives killing some wheight?
The game doesn't give killing any weight, unfortunately. I wish it did. I wish there was any remorse displayed by the characters. Instead you get mindless screaming and lame quips.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
...so the game's main problem is that the protagonists are bad people? Bad people? In my GTA game? Well, this is just outrageous.
 

Sassafrass

This is a placeholder
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
51,250
1
3
Country
United Kingdom
Neronium said:
Sassafrass said:
Oh boy, this is gonna end well.

Guys, just remember. A 3.5 out of 5 translates to a 7 out of 10. A 7 out of 10 is still pretty good, you know.
This is the internet and the gaming industry my old friend, so obviously if anything is below a 9/10 then it's the worst game ever and the review was completely unfair and biased so the reviewer must be burned. XD
True, and on the other end of the scale, if the review is a ten, the review has obviously been bought out and has no class. XD

Anyways, seeing the type of posts this thread is getting already, I'm out. Enjoy arguing about the fact DA2 got a higher score than this and how Greg's opinions are apparently wrong, everyone. :D
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
If someone unironically brings up the DA2 review, I will headslam them until they understand the concept of "Not Much Is Objective In Game Reviewing God Dammit".

I think this review is perfectly valid in its criticisms. In a game as ostensibly gritty and "realistic" as GTA, I can't say I'd be comfortable playing the World's Most Awful Person. In Saints Row, at least there's a very effect Shield of Ludicrousness in effect.

Besides, he mentioned that various aspects of the game are "very fun", and the review left me wanting to play for the sandbox aspect, if not the story. That's a "good review", is it not?

Also, from what I'm reading, I'm not sure that "letting the gang member voice actors say whatever" was a great idea after all.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
I have no real qualms with playing as morally reprehensible assholes, so this game sounds right up my alley!

Also, I wouldn't call what Tommy Vercetti did "justice" as he was a massive asshole who loved killing (and god bless him for it)

Hell, even CJ and Niko Bellic once you get down to it are mass murdering criminals who commit an untold amount of atrocities. No matter how grim their situation, the player can make these "sympathetic" characters throw grenades on highways and see how big a pile-up they can cause.
 

GoddyofAus

New member
Aug 3, 2010
384
0
0
The game itself is perfectly fine yet the author of the review had a problem with it on a moral grounding.

Yep, this will certainly end well.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
As long as the hookers still die and the redneck laughs about it.
Bottom Line: A technical achievement, GTAV's driving and shooting gameplay in an excellently crafted open world is marred by a script that presents despicable characters as the protagonists.Breaking Bad the videogame?Recommendation: It's certainly fun to be the bad guy sometimes, but only buy Grand Theft Auto V if you're prepared to play as characters with no justifiable motivation for doing awful things to people.So I get to play as someone playing a Grand Theft Auto game?
 

Calibanbutcher

New member
Nov 29, 2009
1,691
0
0
Greg Tito said:
Calibanbutcher said:
Just one thing I forgot to add: So "killing not being fun but actually unpleasant" is NOT pushing the boundaries of video-games?

Are you saying that we should STRIVE for mindless run-and-gun violence in video-games instead of an immersive experience with a narrative that actually gives killing some wheight?
The game doesn't give killing any weight, unfortunately. I wish it did. I wish there was any remorse displayed by the characters. Instead you get mindless screaming and lame quips.
Ah.
Now, please allow me to answer in a respectful adult manner:
Ok, I get why this would irk you, especially in a post-GTA-IV-world where both, Red Dead Redemption (which I STILL need to finish I just remembered) and Spec Ops: The Line exist, which have both managed to give the act of shooting someone some actual wheight, whilst also allowing their characters to change BECAUSE of the acts they committed.
Seeing as RDR is, in fact, a Rockstar title, it seems understandable that you'd be a bit dissapointed that Rockstar has not managed to recreate that experience.
Afterall, Rockstar doesn't seem to be going for levity and humour too much anymore. We have Saints Row for that.


And now I shall squee with joy because one of the big shots of the escapist has take note of my existence:
OMGOMGOMGOMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
THIS GOES IN THE ALBUM RIGHT NEXT TO THAT POST JIM ANSWERED
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Maiev Shadowsong said:
I can't respect an opinion when your biggest complaint is murdering people wasn't zaney enough. Maturity. Impact. Intensity. Horror. Discomfort. Morbid curiosity. Fuck all of them, they don't feel nice. -_-
Fixed that for you. And that's the problem, according to post 20.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
maniacfox said:
I think you are missing the point, the original GTA was purely that. A scumbag criminal who would do anything for $$$, so in that sense, in my mind anyway, it is getting back to the original ethos of the game. As much as I like a good story I found the more cut scenes I had to sit through in GTA IV, the less I cared about the story. It's about balance, so I will be curious to see how this game pans out.
First off, GTA3 started with the main character's betrayal and for some reason that gives me something to hold on to for a motivation. Also, we're in a much different world than in 2000, and several things have changed to make me judge GTAV differently. I plan on writing more on this game in an editorial which will hopefully clear up a lot of questions.

Greg
 

NezumiiroKitsune

New member
Mar 29, 2008
979
0
0
Hmm, I'm still tentatively excited to play this despite the characters being framed in such a way as to be unrelateable (though, if I do relate, maybe I should seek help). I'm sure Rockstar can still craft an interesting narrative with psychopaths, and as Greg mentions, it's never not fun to explore a GTA world. As someone who enjoys roleplaying a little in these sorts of games (I tried to hold off killing and stealing as long as possible in GTAIV, and even later in the game, didn't do it for no reason (except immediately after I'd saved, naturally)), so this is pertinent, but 3.5 won't be putting me off purchasing is ASAP.

Which will be the 25th probably, so that's another week of spoiler dodging for me.

EDIT: Looking forward to reading the editorial! I'm sure there is a lot more left to be said about this game.
 

Roxas1359

Burn, Burn it All!
Aug 8, 2009
33,758
0
0
Sassafrass said:
True, and on the other end of the scale, if the review is a ten, the review has obviously been bought out and has no class. XD

Anyways, seeing the type of posts this thread is getting already, I'm out. Enjoy arguing about the fact DA2 got a higher score than this and how Greg's opinions are apparently wrong, everyone. :D
Dude, come to the Forum Games Group so we can all watch the flames rise higher soon enough. We did it with the WGDF comic and it was a hoot. XD
 
Apr 28, 2008
14,634
0
0
Greg Tito said:
Calibanbutcher said:
Just one thing I forgot to add: So "killing not being fun but actually unpleasant" is NOT pushing the boundaries of video-games?

Are you saying that we should STRIVE for mindless run-and-gun violence in video-games instead of an immersive experience with a narrative that actually gives killing some wheight?
The game doesn't give killing any weight, unfortunately. I wish it did. I wish there was any remorse displayed by the characters. Instead you get mindless screaming and lame quips.
I've been wanting that since GTA III. IV is the only one that seemed to try, but it was underscored by the general gameplay, which is you mowing down tons of dudes.

Greg Tito said:
maniacfox said:
I think you are missing the point, the original GTA was purely that. A scumbag criminal who would do anything for $$$, so in that sense, in my mind anyway, it is getting back to the original ethos of the game. As much as I like a good story I found the more cut scenes I had to sit through in GTA IV, the less I cared about the story. It's about balance, so I will be curious to see how this game pans out.
First off, GTA3 started with the main character's betrayal and for some reason that gives me something to hold on to for a motivation. Also, we're in a much different world than in 2000, and several things have changed to make me judge GTAV differently. I plan on writing more on this game in an editorial which will hopefully clear up a lot of questions.

Greg
Look forward to reading this :D
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
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 furthrer 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.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,844
1
3
Country
United States
So, your main problem with it is that the main characters are completely evil? Actually...I have to say I kinda like that idea. To quote Yahtzee "Sometimes it's gratifying to play as an evil hate ridden fuck instead of a snarky self righteous pretty boy." So yeah. I respect your opinion, but I think I'll be giving this game a crack.
 

Teoes

Poof, poof, sparkles!
Jun 1, 2010
5,174
0
0
lacktheknack said:
If someone unironically brings up the DA2 review, I will headslam them until they understand the concept of "Not Much Is Objective In Game Reviewing God Dammit".
I think you were already too late in that, unfortunately. It has been brought up a few times already and I'm running my irony meter over them just now.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Ranorak said:
Question, IS there some sort of Checkpoint system with the missions?

If not, I'm going to skip this game all together.
I HATE having to drive for 10 minutes to the same fucking place, with the same fucking dialogue, for the 4th fucking time, because I got shot while I was trying to find cover, but instead just bumped into stuff in GTA 4.
Yes, there is a checkpoint system, and the missions are generally fun.

Greg
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Teoes said:
lacktheknack said:
If someone unironically brings up the DA2 review, I will headslam them until they understand the concept of "Not Much Is Objective In Game Reviewing God Dammit".
I think you were already too late in that, unfortunately. It has been brought up a few times already and I'm running my irony meter over them just now.
I'm giving the first two the benefit of the doubt.

If they pop in again to clarify their state of non-irony, then the headslamming will proceed. :D
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
There are WAY too many "100" critic scores over on Metacritic for me to trust any of them.

Definitely going to give Greg's review additional weight and wait to read the most coherent user reviews later this week.
 

sky14kemea

Deus Ex-Mod
Jun 26, 2008
12,760
0
0
Andy Shandy said:
And a tough week for the mods gets even harder. XD
Are you kidding, it's like Christmas for us!

Wait no, what's the opposite of Christmas? Uhhhh... It's like Armageddon! I like to think I'm the Bruce Willis of the Mod team, though obviously that means I'm probably going to die in a heroic ball of flames in a little while... =[

OT: I don't understand the huge weight of a few little score numbers. Personally, if you like the game, great! Go enjoy it! If you don't, then fine! Go enjoy something else! :D

Can't we all just sit down in front of the TV with our children, talk to them, and hit them?
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Hoooooooooooly hell, there are SO MANY 100s on Metacritic. Sheesh.

I predict New-Account Rage in the near future.

RIP, mods.
 

Teoes

Poof, poof, sparkles!
Jun 1, 2010
5,174
0
0
sky14kemea said:
OT: I don't understand the huge weight of a few little score numbers. Personally, if you like the game, great! Go enjoy it! If you don't, then fine! Go enjoy something else! :D
If it were anyone else, I'd be really tempted to post that Willy Wonka 'you must be new here' gif. How dare you hold such a laid-back and easy going nature? Don't you know you're supposed to be mortally wounded when a game you've not yet played but instinctively know is the best thing ever, isn't given a perfect score and buried underneath roses and lacy underwear?
 

5-0

New member
Apr 6, 2010
549
0
0
I'd be inclined to believe that the game's lack of morality is a true problem considering that the reviewer over at Gamespot also picked up on it. It's not going to stop me from purchasing it though, I mean how many games truly give weight to their acts of killing? Like it or not, we're part of a medium in which killing is often fun. Yes, this generation has seen a recent crop of games which tried to provide morality to the act, whether that be through the lens of revenge or self defence, but the fact is the vast majority of games have "don't care" attitudes towards murder. It's a shame that a developer with Rockstar's reputation perhaps didn't go for a more mature take on things, and the fact that reviewers are willing to point this out should be applauded.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,844
1
3
Country
United States
vini77 said:
Wow, so let me get this straight. The 3 mass murdering psychopathic criminal protagonists aren't likeable enough? That's your criticism of the game. What a horrendous review.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/grand-theft-auto-v/critic-reviews

Game currently has 99/100 on Metacritic, and this horrible review isn't going to change the fact that it's the best game of this generation. After playing it for over 4 days, I can safely say that.
Ok first of all, he gave it a 3.5 stars out of 5. That's a 7. That's a good review. Second of all, the fact that he isn't falling into line with the status quo shouldn't be grounds for criticism. Third of all, the game doesn't come out till tomorrow, how do you know how good it is?
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
vini77 said:
Wow, so let me get this straight. The 3 mass murdering psychopathic criminal protagonists aren't likeable enough? That's your criticism of the game. What a horrendous review.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/grand-theft-auto-v/critic-reviews

Game currently has 99/100 on Metacritic, and this horrible review isn't going to change the fact that it's the best game of this generation. After playing it for over 4 days, I can safely say that.
The game was ruined for him by the characters. What more do you want from him?

Also: That's one.

I'm guessing there's going to be eighty of these new accounts that pop in here just to attack Greg Tito. Any bets, guys?
 

sky14kemea

Deus Ex-Mod
Jun 26, 2008
12,760
0
0
Teoes said:
sky14kemea said:
OT: I don't understand the huge weight of a few little score numbers. Personally, if you like the game, great! Go enjoy it! If you don't, then fine! Go enjoy something else! :D
If it were anyone else, I'd be really tempted to post that Willy Wonka 'you must be new here' gif. How dare you hold such a laid-back and easy going nature? Don't you know you're supposed to be mortally wounded when a game you've not yet played but instinctively know is the best thing ever, isn't given a perfect score and buried underneath roses and lacy underwear?
You're right, I've been blinded by this comedy show in my other tab! Clearly it's time for pitchforks and fire. Meet me at sundown by the old bell tower, we'll lynch this monster for good!

Maybe I am a little optimistic, it's probably why I don't usually read reviews unless I don't plan on playing the game anyway. I don't mind passionate people as long as the insults don't start flying. =P
 

MammothBlade

It's not that I LIKE you b-baka!
Oct 12, 2011
5,246
0
0
Bottom Line: A technical achievement, GTAV's driving and shooting gameplay in an excellently crafted open world is marred by a script that presents despicable characters as the protagonists.

Recommendation: It's certainly fun to be the bad guy sometimes, but only buy Grand Theft Auto V if you're prepared to play as characters with no justifiable motivation for doing awful things to people.
That's part of the whole point of GTA. Looks like it finally cast off the chains of angsty sob stories and created a game where the whole point is to be a lying, stealing, murdering arsehole - or not, if you don't want to. This pushes new boundaries of player freedom. To be, or not to be...

Essentially, the biggest complaint apart from the justifiable complaints about gunplay seems to be that well, it's GTA without a hint of a conscience. Just as it should be... heh heh heh.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Greg Tito said:
Calibanbutcher said:
Just one thing I forgot to add: So "killing not being fun but actually unpleasant" is NOT pushing the boundaries of video-games?

Are you saying that we should STRIVE for mindless run-and-gun violence in video-games instead of an immersive experience with a narrative that actually gives killing some wheight?
The game doesn't give killing any weight, unfortunately. I wish it did. I wish there was any remorse displayed by the characters. Instead you get mindless screaming and lame quips.
But you spend the entire review telling us how non-gamey the death is and how horrible it is to bear witness to. But now it's mindless and zaney again. Now there's "no weight" to the killing. Every quote you offer is contrary to the last.

I don't think you actually know what you think of the game and simply wanted a review up.
 

Andy Shandy

Fucked if I know
Jun 7, 2010
4,797
0
0
sky14kemea said:
Andy Shandy said:
And a tough week for the mods gets even harder. XD
Are you kidding, it's like Christmas for us!

Wait no, what's the opposite of Christmas? Uhhhh... It's like Armageddon! I like to think I'm the Bruce Willis of the Mod team, though obviously that means I'm probably going to die in a heroic ball of flames in a little while... =[
Marter can be Ben Affleck! Which also makes him the Batmod to your Spidermod. It's perfect :D
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
God, waiting for the PC version is going to be a nightmare...

Good review Mr. Tito! While I disagree that the main characters being thugs is that of a big detraction, I can understand why it might be unpalatable for people.
 

Jamash

Top Todger
Jun 25, 2008
3,641
0
0
Let me get this straight, so not only is Grand Theft Auto 5 around 30% worse that Dragon Age 2, it's not even worth Hate/10?

Now I regret spending £120 on the Collector's Edition... or at least I would if I lived in a parallel world where I make my decisions based on other people's opinions. However, according to Parallel Universe theory, at this point in time there's another me who feels like he's been kicked in the balls and is regretting his pre-order. I'm glad I'm not that guy.

I suppose also according to Parallel Universe theory, at this point in time there's now at least 100 Greg Titos who have all made Rockstar's Shitlist, but with varying degrees of severity and consequence.

Let's hope our universe is more merciful than the one where the Scottish Empire rules the world, or the one where Voodoo is the most popular organised religion and videogame publishers have all the dolls.
 

IronMit

New member
Jul 24, 2012
533
0
0
I'm not a fan of GTA..because it's just not for me. But the criticism seems a bit off. What more character motivation then more power and more money do you need in a game in this setting?

That's like downgrading Just cause 2 because the mercenary doesn't have a flushed out backstory
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Ihniwid said:
Dragon Age 2 was a helluva game...
Ah you beat me to it! The number one reason that this review should be taken with a pretty big grain of salt. Like the kind that they give to horses.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
ccdohl said:
Ihniwid said:
Dragon Age 2 was a helluva game...
Ah you beat me to it! The number one reason that this review should be taken with a pretty big grain of salt. Like the kind that they give to horses.
"This review should be taken with a salt lick" just doesn't sound right lol.
 

Ecliptica Wolf

New member
Apr 20, 2011
40
0
0
I completely disagree with this review. I don't disagree with the reviewer's right to have an opinion on the matter but this is the only review that I've read where I feel that the reviewer has missed something here.

The protagonists are supposed to be evil, morally corrupt and downright debased. If that turns you off the game then that's okay, genuinely that's fine. But when a review criticises not being able to kill someone in a 'gamey' enough way then I draw the line there.

Games are experiences, and this is an experience. Personally I can't wait to play this game and experience it, but this review strikes a bad note with me. It just does.
 

Ace Morologist

New member
Apr 25, 2013
160
0
0
I get it.

Being a horrible person in a video game because of the awful things you do in that video game is a pretty good time. That's why I can run around freeze-shattering and Abduct-O-Matic'ing people in Saints' Row 4 and have a ball.

Supporting the actions of truly horrible people as scripted by other people, however, is much different and arguably not as much fun. It's all about how often you're in control of the character as opposed to how often the script is. From this review, it sounds like this game doesn't strike a balance suitable to the reviewer (or to me, admittedly).

--Morology!
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Well, I guess the amazing quality of Dragon Age 2 has spoiled all other video games for you.
 
Oct 2, 2012
1,266
0
0
Your criticisms are valid and solid but they don't apply to me.
So while I understand and respect why you didn't like what you did I know that I will enjoy those bits.
So apparently this game is gonna be golden for me :D
 

flarty

New member
Apr 26, 2012
632
0
0
vini77 said:
Wow, so let me get this straight. The 3 mass murdering psychopathic criminal protagonists aren't likeable enough? That's your criticism of the game. This must be that new account rage someone bought up, because this review is terrible. Completely misses the point.
Yet everyone deemed it as a valid complaint for the kane and lynch games.
 

Flamezdudes

New member
Aug 27, 2009
3,696
0
0
"Main selling point of GTA is playing as a massive sociopath."

"Waaaahhhhh the game made me play as a massive sociopath! :( "

For fuck sake, this is GTA. That is not a valid complaint.
 

Xan Krieger

Completely insane
Feb 11, 2009
2,918
0
0
Greg Tito said:
Ranorak said:
Question, IS there some sort of Checkpoint system with the missions?

If not, I'm going to skip this game all together.
I HATE having to drive for 10 minutes to the same fucking place, with the same fucking dialogue, for the 4th fucking time, because I got shot while I was trying to find cover, but instead just bumped into stuff in GTA 4.
Yes, there is a checkpoint system, and the missions are generally fun.

Greg
Excellent, think I'll get it having read the review. The way I see it is we all have it in us to be total dicks just for the sake of being a total dick so this is a game that we'll all enjoy from time to time if we just let that side of us out. There's a game for every facet of a person's personality. When I feel like being a great military leader I've got a ton of strategy games, when I feel like being a hero in space I've got sci-fi games out the proverbial ass, when I feel like...me I've got RPGs that let me be me in a ton of different settings.
 

fix-the-spade

New member
Feb 25, 2008
8,639
0
0
This is why I still visit the Escapist everyday after nearly eight years(!!!)

Reviewers with opinions that actually gets expressed, not watered down, edited out or replaced with weasel speak. It's interesting that the characters in this come across so completely unlikable, I expected that for Trevor, but was hoping the other two would at least have deeper characterisations than plain bad guys.

Still my favourite GTA protagonist is still CJ, playing the straight man forced into rapidly escalating crazy situations, by the end he's as much a gang banger as his brother, but at least a sympathetic one.
 

Imperioratorex Caprae

Henchgoat Emperor
May 15, 2010
5,499
0
0
Greg Tito said:
maniacfox said:
I think you are missing the point, the original GTA was purely that. A scumbag criminal who would do anything for $$$, so in that sense, in my mind anyway, it is getting back to the original ethos of the game. As much as I like a good story I found the more cut scenes I had to sit through in GTA IV, the less I cared about the story. It's about balance, so I will be curious to see how this game pans out.
First off, GTA3 started with the main character's betrayal and for some reason that gives me something to hold on to for a motivation. Also, we're in a much different world than in 2000, and several things have changed to make me judge GTAV differently. I plan on writing more on this game in an editorial which will hopefully clear up a lot of questions.

Greg
You can look at this in a different light. That is crime and criminals aren't to be looked up to, or held up as anti-heroes. That sometimes bad guys are just BAD GUYS and there is no redemption, there is nothing good about them. Some people are true sociopaths, and maybe R* is trying to tell that story.
I am kind of sickened we live in a world where Walter White is looked up to, when in truth he's not a hero but a sick man using his sickness as an excuse to be a bad guy. Where people can say Tony Soprano wasn't a villain, but misunderstood.
 

Andy Shandy

Fucked if I know
Jun 7, 2010
4,797
0
0
lacktheknack said:
I'm guessing there's going to be eighty of these new accounts that pop in here just to attack Greg Tito. Any bets, guys?
That's a conservative estimate, methinks. XD
vini77 said:
Wow, so let me get this straight. The 3 mass murdering psychopathic criminal protagonists aren't likeable enough? That's your criticism of the game. This must be that new account rage someone bought up, because this review is terrible. Completely misses the point.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/grand-theft-auto-v/critic-reviews

Game currently has 99/100 on Metacritic, and this lazy review isn't going to change the fact that it's the best game of this generation. After playing it for over 4 days, I can safely say that.
You know there are plenty other websites giving perfect 10s that you can jizz your pants over, if you need somebody to validate your opinion, for whatever reason.
 

Aiddon_v1legacy

New member
Nov 19, 2009
3,649
0
0
So basically Houser TRIED to just cut out the BS and make the characters scumbags...but also forgot to at least make them INTERESTING scumbags. He seems to have forgotten why a lot of criminal characters WORKED (though to be fair Godfather Part II is also meant to be viewed as a sort of tragedy; Michael DOES lose his morality but it's meant to be seen as a tragic act). He tried to have his cake and eat it by making the main characters reprehensible, but also forgot when you do that you end up giving the audience NO ONE to hang onto as relatable or even likable thus eliminating any reason to get invested in the narrative. Sure, SRIV had a sociopath as the protagonist, but THAT game was a spoof (though oddly enough a lot of the character moments actually worked and could let you get behind the Boss or the other Saints). There's a reason why Joe Pesci wasn't the main character in Goodfellas.
 

Tireseas_v1legacy

Plop plop plop
Sep 28, 2009
2,362
0
0
sky14kemea said:
Wait no, what's the opposite of Christmas?
A traditional Jewish Christmas at a south-Manhattan Chinese restaurant. Fun times...

OT: Good mechanics, good visuals, okay writing, detestable characters. Sounds like GTA finally gave me what I was looking for in protagonists.

Sounds like this is a game that needs a second opinion from someone else in the staff. Not to discount Tito's review, but if it's being able to connect with the characters that's the problem, the issues may be more subjective than one likes, making this a prime candidate for a second look.
 

MrBaskerville

New member
Mar 15, 2011
871
0
0
I know i will hate this game, i basically hated the characters the first time they were introduced and this review only made it worse. I might borrow it one day to play around for awhile but defineately never buying it. I'm so tired of Housers writing style, it's basically just an excercise in ripping off movies using unlikeable characters, and the missions are usually linear as fuck.

The thing where you have to plan robberies does sound a bit intriguing though. Btw i'm surprised people are taking this score so well, Gamespot gave it 9/10 and that place is practically imploding (partly because a female reviewer commited this supposed act of heresy).
 

Adultratedhydra

New member
Aug 19, 2010
177
0
0
Oh dear. A Non perfect score for a generally mediocre series. This is going to get more hate than the legions who pop out whenever Cod and Halo arent treated as the citizen kanes of our generation.
 

Vanbael

Arctic fox and BACON lover
Jun 13, 2009
626
0
0
I appreciate the review, everywhere else I've been seeing the whole 'Its the best game of the season' theme going on here. I would rather dick around on that nice environment than focus on the story at that point. So if I come across some money by the time its on PC, I'll give it a shot and mod the hell out of it.

And now for the scheduled wave of new comers to attack the review.
 

MrBaskerville

New member
Mar 15, 2011
871
0
0
Jack Ofall said:
Greg Tito said:
maniacfox said:
I think you are missing the point, the original GTA was purely that. A scumbag criminal who would do anything for $$$, so in that sense, in my mind anyway, it is getting back to the original ethos of the game. As much as I like a good story I found the more cut scenes I had to sit through in GTA IV, the less I cared about the story. It's about balance, so I will be curious to see how this game pans out.
First off, GTA3 started with the main character's betrayal and for some reason that gives me something to hold on to for a motivation. Also, we're in a much different world than in 2000, and several things have changed to make me judge GTAV differently. I plan on writing more on this game in an editorial which will hopefully clear up a lot of questions.

Greg
But for now, you're smarmy, attention seeking head managed to knock metacritic's average score down just to get notice. Because to be frank, I never heard of you before this s**t review.
And that matters because?

It's just a number and an opinion, chill out^^.
 

jaateloauto

New member
Jan 23, 2008
18
0
0
GTA 4 suffered from awful and boring plot, missions and characters so it's a valid criticism.

Don't get me started on the whole Metacritic aspect. Every other review site has their links up there too.
 

Ecliptica Wolf

New member
Apr 20, 2011
40
0
0
Adultratedhydra said:
Oh dear. A Non perfect score for a generally mediocre series. This is going to get more hate than the legions who pop out whenever Cod and Halo arent treated as the citizen kanes of our generation.
I don't get this sort of comment at all. Call of Duty and Halo are both excellent video games. I play EVE online and driving simulators but I still enjoy both titles immensely.
 

DataSnake

New member
Aug 5, 2009
467
0
0
The protagonists are murderous assholes, but are they ENTERTAINING murderous assholes? I mean, I'd play a game where I was essentially a less-pale version of the Joker, but I don't think I'd enjoy playing as, for instance, a Klansman. So my question is, which side do GTA V's assholes fall into?
 

willzino

New member
Sep 16, 2013
2
0
0
Don't listen to this people, this is the worst review I've ever read.
He says the characters aren't likable and have no motives, except if they would've actually played the game it would have been made clear that all the characters have a motive. For example, Franklin is desperately trying to get out of the hood life and make honest money.

Also, I love it how you don't praise the games large map, beautiful scenery, large amount of customization, the amount of time and money it has taken to create, etc. but instead you complain about too much violence in a grand theft auto game.


TL;DR: Review sucks. Poorly written, awful points.
 

GonzoGamer

New member
Apr 9, 2008
7,063
0
0
odolwa99 said:
How do you expect to tell a story about a good man when, at any given moment, the player has driven down a sidewalk in an oil tanker, ploughing through pedestrians and hurling molotovs at grannies on the other side of the street...?
Exactly, I'm happy to hear that the protagonists are more like the kind of people I play GTA as.
Playing an "ex" criminal with a tortured conscience makes it kind of hard to roleplay those moments where you just feel like causing chaos in that huge world.

If the characters being psychotic assholes is the only "complaint" about the game, I'm really looking forward to it.
 

Epicity

New member
Sep 16, 2013
1
0
0
The reviews complains about the game being immature and having characters that do despicable things. The fact that this is part of the franchise and the core of GTA is about making fun of society and having characters that can go around kill civilians makes those point completely wrong in context with the game.
 

MammothBlade

It's not that I LIKE you b-baka!
Oct 12, 2011
5,246
0
0
Jack Ofall said:
Adultratedhydra said:
Oh dear. A Non perfect score for a generally mediocre series. This is going to get more hate than the legions who pop out whenever Cod and Halo arent treated as the citizen kanes of our generation.
I hate both of those series. And it's F all to do with you what other's say about the review. nonce.
You registered just to insult the reviewer and anyone else who disagrees with you. Wonderful.
 

TKretts3

New member
Jul 20, 2010
432
0
0
There's actually a quote for the Telegraph UK (Which, apparently, reviews video games...) that I really like, having to do with the moral wretchedness of the characters.

The Telegraph said:
And Trevor? Trevor may well be you. Trevor is the Grand Theft Auto player that causes carnage and squelches pedestrians just to achieve a five-star wanted rating and watch the following mayhem unfold. He is the twisted, ugly reflection of all the nasty stuff that GTA lets you do but rarely explicitly encourages. Rockstar wants you to look at his face and feel uncomfortable. And it works.
The characters are evil, and why shouldn't they be? A good portion of GTA and SR players have fun by doing things like that - getting into a garbage truck and plowing into pedestrians, throwing shock bombs at grannies, and just generally going berserk. When you have a character whose in it for 'justice' or who is trying to do the right thing, actions like this can be a serious disconnect.
 

Anthadlas Babyeater

New member
Feb 26, 2013
24
0
0
I can't understand why you would praise everything about the game and then knock the review score down below many other games which are much worse based on 1 criticism.
I find it stupid that you think the characters are scumbags, the same characters who are killing people, robbing banks and evading the police to make a quick buck and you're saying that their morals make them unlikable? If you brought forward any evidence that this made the game worse I could believe you but it seems that you are nitpicking at stupid things in an illogical way just to try and get more views on your review.
 

yourbeliefs

Bored at Work
Jan 30, 2009
781
0
0
I find it amusing that people like to jump on a game reviewer because he has an opinion on something that A: Isn't the same as everyone else, and B: Is for something that people haven't even played either. How do you all know that your opinion won't be the same as Greg's? How about you play the actual game before you just dismiss the guy's review for being wrong and a "troll wannabee that wants to get himself noticed on metacritic"?
 

AmrasCalmacil

New member
Jul 19, 2008
2,421
0
0
Crazy Zaul said:
3.5 WTF, even Polygon gave it a 9.5. I'm gonna have to actually read it now.
Wow, Polygon must have really loved GTA V if they gave it 9.5 out of 5 stars.

I think I see what bothered Greg, and it makes a lot of sense if he enjoyed the story less because of it.

How are we meant to care at all about anything that happens to these characters when they are, at their core, a bunch of sociopaths doing it out of no more motivation than money? Even Niko, who I found an intolerable protagonist had some motivations, though it was always a bit Count of Monte Cristo.

Stories, whether film, book, or video game, require us to have at least some care about what happens to the characters. I'm not quite sure about anyone else, but if I find a character and their actions utterly reprehensible, then I don't much care what happens for them, and a vital element is lost from the story.

That doesn't mean GTA V is a bad game, by any stretch, even with the horrors of Yoga and Bike Riding, it still looks and sounds like an amazing game, I'm looking forward to making my own judgements whenever it comes to PC/Whenever I cave and get it on Xbox, and hey, maybe I'll find something I like about the characters. Judging by all the trailers I've seen, I doubt it, but hey, what are they going to do? Add John Marston to the game?

There's always GTA Online anyway, which I imagine will eat up a lot of my time. Multiplayer with all the features of the singleplayer open world is what I've wanted Rockstar to do for the longest time.
 

Cyrax987

New member
Aug 3, 2009
250
0
0
Greg Tito said:
Calibanbutcher said:
Just one thing I forgot to add: So "killing not being fun but actually unpleasant" is NOT pushing the boundaries of video-games?

Are you saying that we should STRIVE for mindless run-and-gun violence in video-games instead of an immersive experience with a narrative that actually gives killing some wheight?
The game doesn't give killing any weight, unfortunately. I wish it did. I wish there was any remorse displayed by the characters. Instead you get mindless screaming and lame quips.
You mean like every GTA with a talking protagonist? Tommy, CJ, Niko, Johnny, and Luis all made remarks about killing people and it wasn't "Oh I'm so sorry for doing this I didn't mean it"

It honestly comes off as a publicity review to garner more page views to the site. I've been a long time fan of the escapist and I'm still going to come to the site because I'm not going to let one review deter me away. But to spout about all of it's technical achievements on a PRODUCT which is the point of a review for any good/service but because you don't agree with a character's morals you slap it down a notch.

Just seems very petty and intentional for an outcry.
 

willzino

New member
Sep 16, 2013
2
0
0
yourbeliefs said:
I find it amusing that people like to jump on a game reviewer because he has an opinion on something that A: Isn't the same as everyone else, and B: Is for something that people haven't even played either. How do you all know that your opinion won't be the same as Greg's? How about you play the actual game before you just dismiss the guy's review for being wrong and a "troll wannabee that wants to get himself noticed on metacritic"?
Amazon and other retailers have been shipping the game early. You'll find many of us have infact played.
 

Adultratedhydra

New member
Aug 19, 2010
177
0
0
Ecliptica Wolf said:
Adultratedhydra said:
I never said they were bad series. I have no opinion of Anything past Halo Reach and i choose to not acknowledge anything past Cod 5. But whenever someone does less than slobber all over them legions of jilted fans come out and call "OH YOUR JUST BEING EDGY".
You choose not to acknowledge it? Why? That whole phrase insinuates that you're being pompous about video games haha. I'm sorry but it really does lol...
Its as simple as "I dont have anything nice to say about them so i say nothing." Hence i have no opinion of the games since i dont play them. Theres nothing wrong with that.

Besides, no opinion is better than "COD/HALO IS GOOD" "NO ITS NOT" arguments all over the place
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
TopazFusion said:
lacktheknack said:
If someone unironically brings up the DA2 review, I will headslam them until they understand the concept of "Not Much Is Objective In Game Reviewing God Dammit".
I think you better commence that head-slamming. =P
YEP!

Super Not Cosmo said:
Well, I guess the amazing quality of Dragon Age 2 has spoiled all other video games for you.


NOT!



MUCH!



IS OBJECTIVE!



IN GAME REVIEWING!



GOD!



DAMMIT!





... I feel better. Thanks.
 

Doclector

New member
Aug 22, 2009
5,010
0
0
So...no puckish rogues here?

Honestly, that kinda sounds interesting. To be forced into the role of characters who are utterly evil and have no reason for being so other than just being terrible people.

But I wasn't planning on getting it at launch, and that doesn't change my decision. Still, it'll be interesting to see what people make of it if the characters really are as morally bankrupt as you say.
 

Ecliptica Wolf

New member
Apr 20, 2011
40
0
0
Adultratedhydra said:
Its as simple as "I dont have anything nice to say about them so i say nothing." Hence i have no opinion of the games since i dont play them. Theres nothing wrong with that.
Fair enough, but stating that you don't acknowledge them is completely different to what you just said. That would be like me saying I don't acknowledge Stalin because I have nothing nice to say about him. It just doesn't work...
 

Racecarlock

New member
Jul 10, 2010
2,497
0
0
"It's certainly fun to be the bad guy sometimes, but only buy Grand Theft Auto V if you're prepared to play as characters with no justifiable motivation for doing awful things to people."

As if people don't play those already when they start running pedestrians down. I would say the protagonists finally match the players in this case. I want to cause mayhem, trevor and michael want to cause mayhem. I like driving, so does franklin. And none of them are concerned for the well being of pedestrians. Like it fucking should be.

And yes, protagonists matching player attitudes matters. I bonded with my saints row 2 guy because he would sing along to songs like I do. What were you expecting, the boondock saints?
 

Able Seacat

New member
Jun 18, 2012
790
0
0
I can understand where the reviewer is coming from in the review. I just hope when I play it the good will out shine the flaws for me. Also, a heads up to anyone getting this for the 360, I read at IGN, that Rockstar has advised not to install the 'play' disc apparently.
 

Adultratedhydra

New member
Aug 19, 2010
177
0
0
Ecliptica Wolf said:
Adultratedhydra said:
Its as simple as "I dont have anything nice to say about them so i say nothing." Hence i have no opinion of the games since i dont play them. Theres nothing wrong with that.
Fair enough, but stating that you don't acknowledge them is completely different to what you just said. That would be like me saying I don't acknowledge Stalin because I have nothing nice to say about him. It just doesn't work...
I meant to say the same thing for both and have no idea why "Dont acknowledge" came out rather than no opinion. I blame it on the fact that Its 11:30 and i got home from work half hour ago. Need to Give the coffee time to kick in so the thoughts are coherent.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
In some ways, it sounds like the characters of GTA have finally caught up with the way the game is most frequently played.

That's not a criticism of the review, by the way- just an observation.

As I said elsewhere, the attempts at morality- or at least an awareness of immorality- in GTA IV rang somewhat hollow because there were still plenty of instances wherein you would walk into a mission point with no idea what it would demand of you, and walk out unable to progress unless you killed a dozen people you had never met.

Rockstar has never shied away from making horrible characters do horrible things (Manhunt, anyone?) but it's interesting- and a little unnerving- to hear that they've brought that full circle with their most well known and "mainstream" title.

Then again, he said jocularly, at least it sounds like you aren't constantly badgered by "friends" to go play darts.
 

Fireprufe15

New member
Nov 10, 2011
177
0
0
I think this is a good review. A review is in essence the opinion of the reviewer. Some people put more weight in aspects like gameplay and graphics, while others put weight in story and characterisation. People also have different tastes. Mr. Greg here, much like me, cares more for story and characterisation. It's not like he completely ignored the good parts of the game and just said what he hated.

He wrote about the good parts and how good it is as well. He didn't like the characterisation, and since that carries a lot of weight for him, he docked the score. 70 is not a bad score.

Thanks Greg, for an honest review. You could just as much have given it a 9 like so many other reviewers, fearing the rage that would follow if you gave it a low score.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Mein Gott, the tide of New-Account Rage is ludicrous! D:

It's a bit of a sad statement that a 7/10, a solid "B" in school, is considered "click-bait".
 

Adultratedhydra

New member
Aug 19, 2010
177
0
0
TopazFusion said:
lacktheknack said:
Mein Gott, the tide of New-Account Rage is ludicrous! D:
You predicted that well.

Where did you get your crystal ball from? I want one...
History has a bad habit of repeating itself. Especially when someone have an opinion that lines up with everyone else.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
TopazFusion said:
lacktheknack said:
Mein Gott, the tide of New-Account Rage is ludicrous! D:
You predicted that well.

Where did you get your crystal ball from? I want one...
I built my own during the White Guy Defense Force and "YAHTZEE WAS OFFENSIVE" threads.
 

Fireprufe15

New member
Nov 10, 2011
177
0
0
At least it's a better review than I would have given. (And sorry for the rage shitstorm that follows what I write here)

My review:
Good:
-
Bad:
- Unplayable, does not work on my gaming device. No PC version, no sale.

0/10
 

TimeLord

For the Emperor!
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,507
0
1
sky14kemea said:
Andy Shandy said:
And a tough week for the mods gets even harder. XD
Are you kidding, it's like Christmas for us!

Wait no, what's the opposite of Christmas? Uhhhh... It's like Armageddon! I like to think I'm the Bruce Willis of the Mod team, though obviously that means I'm probably going to die in a heroic ball of flames in a little while... =[
Our universe is doomed!
DOOOOOMED!

OT: Reviews are subjective personal opinions. Boo hoo, a reviewer didn't like a game that you did, does that affect your enjoyment of the game? No. Does it make any difference to your life? No.

Seriously, if I got annoyed at every review that wasn't up to my expectations then is spend half my time shouting at MovieBob because I really like New Star Trek and Man of Steel.
It's one persons opinions, get over it.
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
I'm sure it's a fine game. I don't really care what the reviewer says about the script. It sounds less flawed than the previous games in that they offered you a false dichotomy to help you deal with what you are doing, this one doesn't. I find it kind of amusing that the game is about a bunch of psychopaths and the people with an over developed sense of empathy are having a problem with it... that is actually really fantastic as far as writing is concerned. In previous games you played mostly murderous psychopaths but it was covered with a false sense of morality that the so called state of "being painted into a corner" brings out.

Don't get me wrong, I am going to wait to see if a PC version actually comes out at all. The idea of playing a bigger city than ever on hardware that is really well beyond it's productive years doesn't sound like a good idea to me. And then to see if they did as horrible a port job as they did with GTA4.
 

burningdragoon

Warrior without Weapons
Jul 27, 2009
1,935
0
0
Fireprufe15 said:
At least it's a better review than I would have given. (And sorry for the rage shitstorm that follows what I write here)

My review:
Good:
-
Bad:
- Unplayable, does not work on my gaming device. No PC version, no sale.

0/10
I don't know man. I'd argue that the PC version [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuous_truth] is definitely the best version.
 

AmrasCalmacil

New member
Jul 19, 2008
2,421
0
0
Flamezdudes said:
"Main selling point of GTA is playing as a massive sociopath."

"Waaaahhhhh the game made me play as a massive sociopath! :( "

For fuck sake, this is GTA. That is not a valid complaint.
I don't think you understand what the words 'valid complaint' mean.

In fact a perfectly good example of a valid complaint about GTA V is - "I enjoyed this game's story and writing less because I had no reason to care on any level about the main characters in it."

A complaint about GTA V that is not valid would be - "I enjoyed this game less because there were neither guns nor cars in it, in fact, the closest thing I could do to committing a crime was jaywalking, which was a bit pointless with no cars around."

I'll give you a few moments to guess what isn't valid about that complaint before I let you click on this very patronising spoiler button.

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

Carrots_macduff

New member
Jul 13, 2011
232
0
0
aye, the idea of a admirable psychopath, speaks to me of wanting to have one's cake and eat it too.

i guess they pulled it off pretty well with Niko, but i definitely think there is something to be said for a reprehensible main character, if only for the sake of escaping that old video game routine of heroes and anti-heroes
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Okay.

I've railed against score inflation more than most.

I would have had no problem with this score in principle.

BUT.

When the same person that gave fucking Dragon Age 2 100% gives a GTA game 3.5/5 because, SHOCK GASP, you play as CRIMINALS IN A FUCKING GRAND THEFT AUTO GAME, then I don't even know HOW to react.

What the fuck is this.

Have you even heard of this series before?
 

Sassafrass

This is a placeholder
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
51,250
1
3
Country
United Kingdom
sky14kemea said:
Andy Shandy said:
And a tough week for the mods gets even harder. XD
Are you kidding, it's like Christmas for us!

Wait no, what's the opposite of Christmas? Uhhhh... It's like Armageddon! I like to think I'm the Bruce Willis of the Mod team, though obviously that means I'm probably going to die in a heroic ball of flames in a little while... =
So who's Liv Tyler?

Marter?
Topaz?
TimeLord?
Maddawg?

...It's Maddawg, isn't it?
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
bringer of illumination said:
Okay.

I've railed against score inflation more than most.

I would have had no problem with this score in principle.

BUT.

When the same person that gave fucking Dragon Age 2 100% gives a GTA game 3.5/5 because, SHOCK GASP, you play as CRIMINALS IN A FUCKING GRAND THEFT AUTO GAME, then I don't even know HOW to react.

What the fuck is this.

Have you even heard of this series before?


NOT!

[slam]

MUCH!

[slam]

IS OBJECTIVE!

[slam]

IN GAME REVIEWING!

[slam]

GOD!

[slam]

DAMMIT!

[slam slam]



He liked DA2, and did not like GTAV as much. And then he listed the reason WHY he didn't enjoy it as much. That's all he needs to account for the difference in score.
 
Feb 22, 2009
715
0
0
vini77 said:
Wow, so let me get this straight. The 3 mass murdering psychopathic criminal protagonists aren't likeable enough? That's your criticism of the game. This must be that new account rage someone bought up, because this review is terrible. Completely misses the point.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/grand-theft-auto-v/critic-reviews

Game currently has 99/100 on Metacritic, and this lazy review isn't going to change the fact that it's the best game of this generation. After playing it for over 4 days, I can safely say that.
Now I haven't played the game yet, and I think when I do I'm going to enjoy it very much. BUT don't you think saying that any criticism based on the characters is invalid, kind of defeats all the hard work Rockstar have been putting into characterisation and plot with their recent games? Criticising, I dunno, League of Legends for having un-likeable characters would be invalid, because characterisation is completely insignificant in that game. But in a game series that recently has become so focused on plot and character, it's completely valid for that to be a criticism of the game.
 

Quoth

New member
Aug 28, 2008
205
0
0
Nice review which goes a long way to giving a consumer what they need; an idea of what to expect. Although it does somewhat smack of trying to find something to criticise it for.
 

Teoes

Poof, poof, sparkles!
Jun 1, 2010
5,174
0
0
lacktheknack said:
Bang snip bang
You may be this thread's Bear Jew. I think there's someone else you need to be introduced to.

edit: you beat me to it!
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Teoes said:
lacktheknack said:
Bang snip bang
You may be this thread's Bear Jew. I think there's someone else you need to be introduced to.
I never saw Inglorious Basterds. Is being the Bear Jew a good thing, or a bad thing?
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Greg Tito said:
Grand Theft Auto V Review - People Suck

You can?t deny the game?s achievements, but the writing will push you away.

Read Full Article
Dragon Age 2 is a 5/5, 100% score.

And you give this a 7/10.

Not gonna lie, I smell a rat bro.
 

an annoyed writer

Exalted Lady of The Meep :3
Jun 21, 2012
1,409
0
0
Greg Tito said:
quoted for attention!
Hey Greg, quick question: what ever happened to the video reviews? I noticed you guys haven't been doing those anymore and I didn't hear anything else about it. What gives?
 

Malty Milk Whistle

New member
Oct 29, 2011
617
0
0
I came into this thread a happy and joyful bunny, yet all these new accounts made purely for the purpose of unleashing trucktons of melted rage and conformity have shattered that.
Thanks guys.
It's a valid complaint, and I was hoping that someone would give this unoriginal and frankly dull game something other than "MASTERPIECE BUY IT NOW AND WE GET MONEY ITS GOOD YEAH".

Urgh.

I'ma go make me some tea now.
 

Anthadlas Babyeater

New member
Feb 26, 2013
24
0
0
bringer of illumination said:
Okay.

I've railed against score inflation more than most.

I would have had no problem with this score in principle.

BUT.

When the same person that gave fucking Dragon Age 2 100% gives a GTA game 3.5/5 because, SHOCK GASP, you play as CRIMINALS IN A FUCKING GRAND THEFT AUTO GAME, then I don't even know HOW to react.

What the fuck is this.

Have you even heard of this series before?
He gave DA2 100%, Seriously who the hell does that? Does this guy even play the games or just throw darts at a board and pick the outcome?
 

baconmaster

New member
Apr 15, 2008
69
0
0
I'd rather play as complete assholes rather than whatever the hell Niko Bellic was. I'm somewhat looking forward to this, but I have to know what my friends think of it first. After all, GTAIV has a 98 on metacritic despite being extremely repetitive, lacking content compared to previous games, and having some of the worst mechanics I've seen this generation. Rockstar could release a game like Amy and reviewers would still eat it up
 

Story

Note to self: Prooof reed posts
Sep 4, 2013
905
0
0
Oh Grand Theft Auto came out already?
I didn't even notice.

Anyway, that was an interesting review. I can think of instances where bad characters ruined the over all experience of a piece a media for me so I can understand where you are coming from. I especially don't like it when such characters are praised and are never "punished" their immoral deeds.

Still, I can't help but be morbidly curious about just how awful these characters are.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Yosharian said:
Dragon Age 2 is a 5/5, 100% score.

And you give this a 7/10.

Not gonna lie, I smell a rat bro.
Anthadlas Babyeater said:
He gave DA2 100%, Seriously who the hell does that? Does this guy even play the games or just throw darts at a board and pick the outcome?
<spoiler=HRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH>http://shoutitforlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Snape-and-Harry-Potter.jpg

NOT!

[slam]

MUCH!

[slam]

IS OBJECTIVE!

[slam]

IN GAME REVIEWING!

[slam]

GOD!

[slam]

DAMMIT!

[slam slam]



I will continue to do this as many times as I need to to get the bleeding point across! :mad:
 

josemlopes

New member
Jun 9, 2008
3,950
0
0
You cant base an entire review on personal preferences, that way if the reviewer of this site for this game was another one we would get an all together diferent opinion/score. One thing is saying that the minigames are just fluff, the game has technical issues or the story is dumb (if trying to be smart) and another thing is that the main characters arent the type of protagonists that you like.

There are a lot of things that I dont like but respect and see why people like it and its good, as a professional reviewer there is a certain responsability to not let you personal view to get that much in the way (it can get but make it clear that it is a personal view). Moviebob fails a lot of times on that too and the Gamespot review goes all out with political views and shit, thats even worse.

I really dont agree with the 10/10 being handled out there but most real issues we seem to get with GTA V are framerate drops and pop-ins. If the game managed to be all it wanted to be (and it wanted a lot) with only those flaws I think it deserves to be a bit more then "average".
 

Carrots_macduff

New member
Jul 13, 2011
232
0
0
"You can only embody a vicious psychopath a short time before it becomes boring, at best, and soul-crushing, at worst.
Forcing players to murder people, not in a gamey "I killed you to complete a goal" way that defines this medium, but in a terrorizing and demeaning way, is not what will make videogames great."

why not? why is it comparatively boring to have an actual, human emotional reaction(negative or otherwise) to doing bad things when compared to killing without context like in most other games?

Maybe thats the perfect way to make video games great
 

FieryTrainwreck

New member
Apr 16, 2010
1,968
0
0
Thought progression of most gamers at this point:

1. Damn. GTA5's aggregate on metacritic is pretty sick. Maybe it will somehow live up to the hype.

2. Wow, there's actually a dissenting opinion in there. One site gave it a mixed review. Wonder why...

3. Never mind, it's just The Escapist. Moving on as if nothing happened.

Content here is starting to cross over from flame-baiting to click-baiting. I think I'll resume my holiday until you all think of something besides kicking hornets nests for shits and giggles.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
lacktheknack said:
Yosharian said:
Dragon Age 2 is a 5/5, 100% score.

And you give this a 7/10.

Not gonna lie, I smell a rat bro.
I will continue to do this as many times as I need to to get the bleeding point across! :mad:
There are certain things which are objective, but let's address subjectivity for a moment. If the characters really are as unlikeable as Greg thinks, it's a definite negative for Greg, that's fine, and it should affect the score, that's fine. 7/10. 7 out of 10 is a barely-above-mediocre title. 6 is mediocre. 8 is good. 7 is slightly above-average. You can't seriously contend that mainly because the game suffers some character problems that it deserves to be scored 'slightly above-average'. This is sensationalist scoring, no more no less. The GTA series has always had its faults, and I'm one of the people who hates Red Dead Redemption's characters for precisely the reasons Greg raises - the characters were boring, shallow and unlikeable, and I cared not a jot for them. But there is no fucking way on this earth I could score that game 7/10. It is far, far too well-made for that.

Aside from that, there are many things about the game that are objective, and this can be seen in the games astonishingly high scores across the board. Even taking into account the obvious review bias that most journalists will have when reviewing such a behemoth, the consensus cannot be that wrong.

Finally, the 5/5 that he gave DA2 is perfectly valid to raise, because it rightfully casts his ability to review a game competently into doubt. Even if you adored all the subjective things about DA2 like the bland characters and the controversial new combat system (which I actually mostly liked... mostly), the loss of tactical view, etc, there are still many, many things which are objectively wrong with that game, such as the constant lazy reusing of the same areas over and over to give one concrete example. DA2 is nowhere, never in a million years, in nobody's eyes, a perfect score, and frankly barely a 9/10 on a good day.

Yours and other people's dismissal of valid criticisms only indicates a willingness to follow unquestioningly people who buck the trend, for the sake of bucking the trend. You're hipsters, in other words. No offence.

Oh but to make it clear, I don't think Greg is 'page-baiting' or doing this to get hits or whatever. I just think he set out to prove a point with this score, that's all.

Another interesting comparison would be that Greg considers Kane & Lynch 2, a most horrendous and sickening game when considering both the content of the actual game and the ugly circumstances surrounding its existence (i.e. why the fuck does it even exist when K&L1 was such a fucking horrible game), a 3 star game, or a 6/10. So this means that GTA5 is only better than K&L2 by a very, very slim margin. That's just ridiculous.
 

WanderingFool

New member
Apr 9, 2009
3,991
0
0
Sassafrass said:
Oh boy, this is gonna end well.

Guys, just remember. A 3.5 out of 5 translates to a 7 out of 10. A 7 out of 10 is still pretty good, you know.
Tut, tut... You should know better. 1-8 on a 10 scale is horrible. Only 9 and 10s are seen as good.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
josemlopes said:
You cant base an entire review on personal preferences, that way if the reviewer of this site for this game was another one we would get an all together diferent opinion/score. One thing is saying that the minigames are just fluff, the game has technical issues or the story is dumb (if trying to be smart) and another thing is that the main characters arent the type of protagonists that you like.

There are a lot of things that I dont like but respect and see why people like it and its good, as a professional reviewer there is a certain responsability to not let you personal view to get that much in the way (it can get but make it clear that it is a personal view). Moviebob fails a lot of times on that too and the Gamespot review goes all out with political views and shit, thats even worse.

I really dont agree with the 10/10 being handled out there but most real issues we seem to get with GTA V are framerate drops and pop-ins. If the game managed to be all it wanted to be (and it wanted a lot) with only those flaws I think it deserves to be a bit more then "average".
Completely false.

I mean, "the story is dumb" is based on personal view, so your own list of critique-able things fails.

I've never been under the impression that reviews are anything BUT based on personal preferences, it's bizarre to see so many people trying to grasp at the concept just now. Yes, if a different reviewer reviewed it, then the score would be different, but that's not a problem. If you're not supposed to include personal preferences in a review, then metacritic would display one score across the board.

Carrots_macduff said:
"You can only embody a vicious psychopath a short time before it becomes boring, at best, and soul-crushing, at worst.
Forcing players to murder people, not in a gamey "I killed you to complete a goal" way that defines this medium, but in a terrorizing and demeaning way, is not what will make videogames great."

why not? why is it comparatively boring to have an actual, human emotional reaction(negative or otherwise) to doing bad things when compared to killing without context like in most other games?

Maybe thats the perfect way to make video games great
Add the interactive element and the fact that this is ostensibly "the most entertaining game of the year" (according to users), and it's easy to see why people don't want to mix "fun" with "horrific death and violence", but they're OK with mixing fun with "derpy death and violence".

Most people playing Spec Ops: The Line weren't having the time of their lives. Some even said it was "anti-fun". GTAV... is not that.
 

DerangedHobo

New member
Jan 11, 2012
231
0
0
So the reviewer's problem with the characters is that... they were assholes?
Well yeah it's GTA, every protagonist in the GTA series has been motivated by money, fuck by this point they've probably committed a few holocausts. Granted they may not be likeable but who plays GTA to like the characters? I play it to fuck shit up for teh lulz and act out my sociopathic fantasies. Also online, online online and more online.
Is this basically 'no fun' the review?
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Yosharian said:
lacktheknack said:
Yosharian said:
Dragon Age 2 is a 5/5, 100% score.

And you give this a 7/10.

Not gonna lie, I smell a rat bro.
I will continue to do this as many times as I need to to get the bleeding point across! :mad:
There are certain things which are objective, but let's address that for a moment. If the characters really are as unlikeable as Greg thinks, it's a definite negative for Greg, that's fine, and it should affect the score, that's fine. 7/10. 7 out of 10 is a barely-above-mediocre title. 6 is mediocre. 8 is good. 7 is slightly above-average. You can't seriously content that mainly because the game suffers some character problems that it deserves to be scored 'slightly above-average'. This is sensationalist scoring, no more no less. The GTA series has always had its faults, and I'm one of the people who hates Red Dead Redemption's characters for precisely the reasons Greg raises - the characters were boring, shallow and unlikeable, and I cared not a jot for them. But there is no fucking way on this earth I could score that game 7/10. It is far, far too well-made for that.

Aside from that, there are many things about the game that are objective, and this can be seen in the games astonishingly high scores across the board. Even taking into account the obvious review bias that most journalists will have when reviewing such a behemoth, the consensus cannot be that wrong.

Finally, the 5/5 that he gave DA2 is perfectly valid to raise, because it rightfully casts his ability to review a game competently into doubt. Even if you adored all the subjective things about DA2 like the bland characters and the controversial new combat system (which I actually mostly liked... mostly), the loss of tactical view, etc, there are still many, many things which are objectively wrong with that game, such as the constant lazy reusing of the same areas over and over to give one concrete example. DA2 is nowhere, never in a million years, in nobody's eyes, a perfect score, and frankly barely a 9/10 on a good day.

Yours and other people's dismissal of valid criticisms only indicates a willingness to follow unquestioningly people who buck the trend, for the sake of bucking the trend. You're hipsters, in other words. No offence.
Nope.

You see, the Escapist does not give a rip about how the gaming industry treats ratings. <link=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/7149-What-Our-Review-Scores-Mean>It runs on its own system, independent of the "8.8" phenomena.

3.5 means "heavily flawed but very enjoyable" or "notably above average". In this case, it's probably the first one.

5 means "not necessarily perfect, but exceptionally enjoyable regardless".

It has always been this way. The Escapist has been "bucking the trend" since before the trend was a thing. They don't fit the trend because people are applying it to them retroactively.

Also, if I'm bucking the "7/10 is entirely average" standard, it's not because I'm a hipster, it's because that standard is the stupidest standard in the critiquing world. 5 is average in movie critique, book critique, essay critique, etc. ONLY GAMING has it arbitrarily raised to 7... because the fans will cry otherwise.
 

Soviet Steve

New member
May 23, 2009
1,511
0
0
Greg Tito said:
Grand Theft Auto V Review - People Suck

You can?t deny the game?s achievements, but the writing will push you away.

Read Full Article
Exactly how I felt about Saints Row II through IV, except the game's achievements were anything but impressive. Whether Saints Row's devs paid more than Rockstar or Greg is a SR fanboy is anyone's guess.
 

NewClassic_v1legacy

Bringer of Words
Jul 30, 2008
2,485
0
0
Carrots_macduff said:
Maybe thats the perfect way to make video games great
I think it depends on the context of the game, though. I personally hated Spec Ops: The Line. Despite where a majority of people went with the title, I felt like it made way too many sacrifices in its medium to deliver its message. To the point where the game felt like it was punishing the player for wanting to play it. It may have meant to be poignant, but it ended up just feeling like it was punishing the player for trying to experience it. It was meant to be, perhaps, but spent too much time hammering the player down, and ended up being a really bad game for the effort. I felt like it lost its entire opportunity trying to hammer its message in.

To me, that's the mark of a bad narrative, sabotaging its central mechanic in order to sell its story. To others, it was a game that garnered massive review buzz, got several articles, and someone even published a book on it. That is the dynamic nature of opinion, and so it also seems true for GTA V.

Anthadlas Babyeater said:
lacktheknack said:
I will continue to do this as many times as I need to to get the bleeding point across! :mad:
It's a valid point if the reviewer is clearly insane
The point of the matter is that Greg Tito seemingly didn't like the narrative styling and structure GTA V put its weight on. The object that was meant to absorb the player for hours and hours turned him off of it. He stated later in the review that it would have been game of the decade had the story not be unnerving, decadently vicious, and unapologetically dark.

So what you have is a well-appointed, exceedingly lavish mansion on a crumbled and crashing foundation. Greg Tito mentioned toward the end of the review that it had opportunity to be Game of the Year, even Game of the Decade. Instead, he stated that the narrative that accompanies the game throughout the narrative and its characters were grating. Combine that with the unlikable protagonists. To him, that merited a 7 out of 10, admittedly still a high score.

Not so much "insane". Speaking as an observer looking in, I can understand his validations for the score he gave based on his review, so it's not a failed review.

But, like a said, that's the dynamic nature of opinion.
 

Kargathia

New member
Jul 16, 2009
1,657
0
0
Lightknight said:
Oh man, just criminals with no real motivation? Good review, that does ding it for me.
He didn't say they didn't have any motivation, he just said they were cunts without much in terms of redeeming qualities.

Which, by the way, I'm perfectly fine with. I honestly don't understand this obsession about being the good guy every time - it's not like they have a monopoly on good character development, motivation, and dialogue. More like the opposite, really.
 

Carrots_macduff

New member
Jul 13, 2011
232
0
0
lacktheknack said:
Some even said it was "anti-fun". GTAV... is not that.
but where is the rule that says we need to keep our fun segregated from our delinquency?

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

Rabite

New member
Aug 28, 2008
26
0
0
OK. How's the driving, shooting, melee, on foot, etc? I don't care if they are bad guys doing bad things. I do worse things when I'm off on my own than they do. I want to know how difficult it is to run from the cops when at 5 stars (sad they took away the 6th star (not mentioned in review)). I want to know about the gameplay itself. The review focused too much on the characters and I don't care about them. I don't play this genre for plot. I do it to go around and kill people for fun. I've never beaten a single GTA/SR/etc game since I started playing them with GTA III. How many missions do you have to go before you are completely let go from the forced tutorials?
 

tomtom94

aka "Who?"
May 11, 2009
3,373
0
0
It strikes me that half the people complaining that "the reviewer doesn't like playing as criminals, why is he reviewing the game" haven't read the review.

The opinion is justified - with comparisons to previous GTA protagonists, no less - on the first sodding page.

It's good to see video game fanboys live up to their joyous reputation.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Carrots_macduff said:
lacktheknack said:
Some even said it was "anti-fun". GTAV... is not that.
but where is the rule that says we need to keep our fun segregated from our delinquency?

django unchained is a great recent example of serious subject matter combined with oot grindhouse action
I didn't care for what I saw of Django.

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

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

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

Saviordd1

New member
Jan 2, 2011
2,455
0
0
ccdohl said:
Ihniwid said:
Dragon Age 2 was a helluva game...
Ah you beat me to it! The number one reason that this review should be taken with a pretty big grain of salt. Like the kind that they give to horses.
Man, you'd almost think people had opinions on things...

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

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

Sassafrass

This is a placeholder
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
51,250
1
3
Country
United Kingdom
WanderingFool said:
Sassafrass said:
Oh boy, this is gonna end well.

Guys, just remember. A 3.5 out of 5 translates to a 7 out of 10. A 7 out of 10 is still pretty good, you know.
Tut, tut... You should know better. 1-8 on a 10 scale is horrible. Only 9 and 10s are seen as good.
*Looks at the post above this*

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

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Sassafrass said:
Oh boy, this is gonna end well.

Guys, just remember. A 3.5 out of 5 translates to a 7 out of 10. A 7 out of 10 is still pretty good, you know.
I don't believe many people are angry about the score, it is the reason why the reviewer lowered the score as much as he did because of moral issues. Personally, this doesn't bother me at all as it actually reinforces my want to pick up the game. A game to affect someone's morals and attitude due to the characters being well written? It is something I really want to experience and play.

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

Milanezi

New member
Mar 2, 2009
619
0
0
Look, ONLY GTA IV had an anti-hero, Vercetti was a fucking scumbag as well as his predecessors. This is game about criminals, about people who chose the short road to reach their goals, and didn't flinch when this road was highly illegal. They ARE criminals, that's part of the GTA experience. Pop culture has created a criminal in the model of Scarface and the bikers of Sons of Anarchy, criminals who we can't help but love, maybe this game is one of those rare pieces where the criminal element is delivered raw, which is something not everyone stomachs, sure.

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

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

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Milanezi said:
Anyway, very weak review, you can't blame GTA for having "scumbag criminals" as main characters anymore than you can blame Superman for being almost unstoppable. It's one thing to rage about the "scumbags" being "scumbags" due to POOR writing, it's another thing to complain, well that they look like cruel egotistical criminals...
Lowering the score because you don't like the subject matter is entirely valid.
 

Nachtmahr

New member
Feb 17, 2011
64
0
0
I find this review shockingly unprofessional and uninformative. A reviewer's subjectivity should not be praised, especially not when it comes to professional game journalism. I don't read a review to get some dude's opinion. I want to know if the controls are smooth and if the cars handle well, or if it feels like a penguin sliding over icy ground.

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

saxman234

New member
Nov 23, 2011
93
0
0
Great read. I appreciate reviews that bring up points that other reviews do not address or scoff over. Although I will still buy this game eventually, thank you for your honest opinion in this review and for giving me new ideas to consider while playing through the game.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,844
1
3
Country
United States
Nachtmahr said:
I find this review shockingly unprofessional and uninformative. A reviewer's subjectivity should not be praised, especially not when it comes to professional game journalism. I don't read a review to get some dude's opinion. I want to know if the controls are smooth and if the cars handle well, or if it feels like penguin sliding over icy ground.

This review tells me almost nothing about HOW the game plays. THAT is why I read a review. Metacritic should seriously reconsider including The Escapist in their average scores.
I'm sorry, I'm just going to say it flat out. Reviews tell the reviewer's opinion. That's how it works. That's how it always works. An objective review? There is no such thing.
 

MBurdock

New member
Aug 7, 2012
62
0
0
AmrasCalmacil said:
Flamezdudes said:
"Main selling point of GTA is playing as a massive sociopath."

"Waaaahhhhh the game made me play as a massive sociopath! :( "

For fuck sake, this is GTA. That is not a valid complaint.
I don't think you understand what the words 'valid complaint' mean.

In fact a perfectly good example of a valid complaint about GTA V is - "I enjoyed this game's story and writing less because I had no reason to care on any level about the main characters in it."

A complaint about GTA V that is not valid would be - "I enjoyed this game less because there were neither guns nor cars in it, in fact, the closest thing I could do to committing a crime was jaywalking, which was a bit pointless with no cars around."

The complaint wasn't valid because it wasn't true. As it turns out, guns and cars are a massive chunk of the gameplay. Who'd a thunk it?
You're incorrect. Validity of an argument is a function of the structure of the argument rather than the truth value of the statements. For example, the following argument is valid.

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

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

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

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

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

Mythmaker

New member
Nov 28, 2012
20
0
0
Well, let me break out my Escapist Review Scale.

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

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

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

So...somewhere between average and outstanding.

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

Elementary - Dear Watson

RIP Eleuthera, I will miss you
Nov 9, 2010
2,980
0
0
Nachtmahr said:
I find this review shockingly unprofessional and uninformative. A reviewer's subjectivity should not be praised, especially not when it comes to professional game journalism. I don't read a review to get some dude's opinion. I want to know if the controls are smooth and if the cars handle well, or if it feels like a penguin sliding over icy ground.

This review tells me almost nothing about HOW the game plays. THAT is why I read a review. Metacritic should seriously reconsider including The Escapist in their average scores.
You appear to be confusing reviews with previews... A preview will talk about technical aspects and the like, where as a review is someone who lets you know what they thought of it... they can add technical stuff in if they want, and Greg will in his editorial probably, but the review is all about his lasting impression, and how that shaped his final score.
 

Teoes

Poof, poof, sparkles!
Jun 1, 2010
5,174
0
0
lacktheknack said:
Teoes said:
lacktheknack said:
Bang snip bang
You may be this thread's Bear Jew. I think there's someone else you need to be introduced to.
I never saw Inglorious Basterds. Is being the Bear Jew a good thing, or a bad thing?
I'd say it's a good thing. He makes his point with a baseball bat.
 

MrHide-Patten

New member
Jun 10, 2009
1,309
0
0
I do like the review takes into account the narrative mostly, because seeing as how it's Rockstar, they're already great at the gameplay. To me it just seems like a polished up GTA4 with more cynicism... and fucking about.

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

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

saxman234

New member
Nov 23, 2011
93
0
0
Nachtmahr said:
I find this review shockingly unprofessional and uninformative. A reviewer's subjectivity should not be praised, especially not when it comes to professional game journalism. I don't read a review to get some dude's opinion. I want to know if the controls are smooth and if the cars handle well, or if it feels like penguin sliding over icy ground.

This review tells me almost nothing about HOW the game plays. THAT is why I read a review. Metacritic should seriously reconsider including The Escapist in their average scores.
Isn't a review supposed to be a critique of a game and not just a laundry list of what the game does? Are reviews really journalism? I think of journalism as more like news stories. Reviews are critiques. All reviews are subjective. One person may find the controls smooth, and feel like the cars handle well and other people may hate it. Handling and gameplay are part of reviews but that is not the only thing that make up a review. Reviews are more about the player's experience. Just because this review brings up new points that you do not care about does not mean everyone else does not care about this. I found this review interesting because it discussed questionable game design choices Rockstar made that dissuaded Greg Tito from enjoying the game more. Is this not important enough to discuss?

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

Anthadlas Babyeater

New member
Feb 26, 2013
24
0
0
lacktheknack said:
Milanezi said:
Anyway, very weak review, you can't blame GTA for having "scumbag criminals" as main characters anymore than you can blame Superman for being almost unstoppable. It's one thing to rage about the "scumbags" being "scumbags" due to POOR writing, it's another thing to complain, well that they look like cruel egotistical criminals...
Lowering the score because you don't like the subject matter is entirely valid.
Not when the subject matter is delivered in an appropriate way, It's like complaining that you don't like Skyrim because it has too many Dragons and fantasy RPG's are boring.

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

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

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

Riobux

New member
Apr 15, 2009
1,955
0
0
erttheking said:
So, your main problem with it is that the main characters are completely evil? Actually...I have to say I kinda like that idea. To quote Yahtzee "Sometimes it's gratifying to play as an evil hate ridden fuck instead of a snarky self righteous pretty boy." So yeah. I respect your opinion, but I think I'll be giving this game a crack.
I'm mostly amused that "you play as bad people" is a worthy justification to penalise it 1 1/2 stars. It's like panning Silent Hill 2 because:
James Sunderland turns out to be a complete bastard.
Or giving Payday 2 a low score because "you shoot police officers".

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

nexus

New member
May 30, 2012
440
0
0
What am I reading.

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

So long and thanks for all the fish.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Anthadlas Babyeater said:
lacktheknack said:
Milanezi said:
Anyway, very weak review, you can't blame GTA for having "scumbag criminals" as main characters anymore than you can blame Superman for being almost unstoppable. It's one thing to rage about the "scumbags" being "scumbags" due to POOR writing, it's another thing to complain, well that they look like cruel egotistical criminals...
Lowering the score because you don't like the subject matter is entirely valid.
Not when the subject matter is delivered in an appropriate way, It's like complaining that you don't like Skyrim because it has too many Dragons and fantasy RPG's are boring.

GTA 5 is a game that sets out to show the story of 3 criminals who want money, respect and power, If you don't like that premise then don't play or review the game. Rather than forcing yourself through a game based on a premise you know you won't like and then writing a review on that game that would clearly be biased against it.
Sounds good to me. However, he played it, he didn't like a key aspect of it and it badly affected the score. Such is life, and it's really not worth having the aneurysm that some people are having over it.

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

Fasckira

Dice Tart
Oct 22, 2009
1,678
0
0
I figured this would have at least netted a 4 star, surprised to see it dropped to a 3.5 considering most the negative points brought up seemed to be more down to Greg being morally offended. I don't think this review really sits with the community expectations of the game, which is a surprise as Greg normally manages to hit the nail on the head.
 

Azure-Supernova

La-li-lu-le-lo!
Aug 5, 2009
3,024
0
0
On one hand, the review's as honest as it gets. It's too well constructed and thought out for clickbait. However, I take issue with one point:

What's missing in GTA V's story is a sense that the characters have been painted into a corner by various machinations beyond their control, like Niko Bellic of GTA IV, or must commit their crimes to mete out justice, as Tommy Vercetti does in Vice City.
This is and always has been Grand Theft Auto, since GTA III (I don't remember the first two or London having a story). Claude was a criminal before Catalina turned tail on him. Tommy Vercetti was a criminal, gang member, drug dealer and killer for the Forelli family. CJ was the most sympathetic, having cleaned up his life before being dragged back in.

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

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Well, I never liked GTA (apart from Vice city), but this review is kinda odd. I mean its his opinion (which is valid), but why is it reviewd by someone who will obviously not like it. I mean its not like all the other GTA´s had justifiable reasons to run around gunning down civilians by the hundreds. so this has to be expected.
Its like if I would review even the best driving game....I just dont like those kinda games, so it would get a bad score.
They should have two persons review it and give their opinions.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Nachtmahr said:
I find this review shockingly unprofessional and uninformative. A reviewer's subjectivity should not be praised, especially not when it comes to professional game journalism. I don't read a review to get some dude's opinion. I want to know if the controls are smooth and if the cars handle well, or if it feels like a penguin sliding over icy ground.

This review tells me almost nothing about HOW the game plays. THAT is why I read a review. Metacritic should seriously reconsider including The Escapist in their average scores.
No... that's why you read a preview or FAQ.

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

hino77

New member
Mar 4, 2010
61
0
0
Am i the only one who finds crying fanboys hilarious? I was literaly reading the comments with popcorn in hand, its better than watching a commedy XD. Though i guess that its kinda sad that people still dont understand that reviews are subjective opinions, i remember the same complaints to a review in a magazine that i read 10 years ago, so people didnt change that much over the years.
 

ShotgunSmoke

New member
Apr 19, 2009
1,062
0
0
This just in: criminals tend to be sociopathic and generally unpleasant people. More at eleven.

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

Aardvaarkman

I am the one who eats ants!
Jul 14, 2011
1,262
0
0
Greg Tito said:
Unfortunately, you can only hear a character say "&^%@ you, Mother&*^%er" so many times before it starts to grate on you.
It certainly would be weird to hear people constantly speaking punctuation out loud. Do they really say "ampersand caret percentage symbol at"? That doesn't sound anything like how Californians speak.
 

Anthadlas Babyeater

New member
Feb 26, 2013
24
0
0
lacktheknack said:
Anthadlas Babyeater said:
lacktheknack said:
Milanezi said:
Anyway, very weak review, you can't blame GTA for having "scumbag criminals" as main characters anymore than you can blame Superman for being almost unstoppable. It's one thing to rage about the "scumbags" being "scumbags" due to POOR writing, it's another thing to complain, well that they look like cruel egotistical criminals...
Lowering the score because you don't like the subject matter is entirely valid.
Not when the subject matter is delivered in an appropriate way, It's like complaining that you don't like Skyrim because it has too many Dragons and fantasy RPG's are boring.

GTA 5 is a game that sets out to show the story of 3 criminals who want money, respect and power, If you don't like that premise then don't play or review the game. Rather than forcing yourself through a game based on a premise you know you won't like and then writing a review on that game that would clearly be biased against it.
Sounds good to me. However, he played it, he didn't like a key aspect of it and it badly affected the score. Such is life, and it's really not worth having the aneurysm that some people are having over it.

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

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Anthadlas Babyeater said:
lacktheknack said:
Anthadlas Babyeater said:
lacktheknack said:
Milanezi said:
Anyway, very weak review, you can't blame GTA for having "scumbag criminals" as main characters anymore than you can blame Superman for being almost unstoppable. It's one thing to rage about the "scumbags" being "scumbags" due to POOR writing, it's another thing to complain, well that they look like cruel egotistical criminals...
Lowering the score because you don't like the subject matter is entirely valid.
Not when the subject matter is delivered in an appropriate way, It's like complaining that you don't like Skyrim because it has too many Dragons and fantasy RPG's are boring.

GTA 5 is a game that sets out to show the story of 3 criminals who want money, respect and power, If you don't like that premise then don't play or review the game. Rather than forcing yourself through a game based on a premise you know you won't like and then writing a review on that game that would clearly be biased against it.
Sounds good to me. However, he played it, he didn't like a key aspect of it and it badly affected the score. Such is life, and it's really not worth having the aneurysm that some people are having over it.

Remember, people, the final score has no bearing on real life. I think everyone is forgetting this.
Review scores can easily have a bearing on Rockstars final sales however, even if it is a good game some people won't buy it based on a bad review, which is unfair to the developers as they can make a good game but still have no control over a reviewer that dislikes it for moral reasons and puts other people off from buying it.
But this isn't a "bad review". According to the Escapist's Star Standards, 3 1/2 = "deeply flawed but very good game" or "notably above average game". In this case, it's probably the former.

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

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

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
lacktheknack said:
Yosharian said:
Dragon Age 2 is a 5/5, 100% score.

And you give this a 7/10.

Not gonna lie, I smell a rat bro.
Anthadlas Babyeater said:
He gave DA2 100%, Seriously who the hell does that? Does this guy even play the games or just throw darts at a board and pick the outcome?
<spoiler=HRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH>http://shoutitforlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Snape-and-Harry-Potter.jpg

NOT!

[slam]

MUCH!

[slam]

IS OBJECTIVE!

[slam]

IN GAME REVIEWING!

[slam]

GOD!

[slam]

DAMMIT!

[slam slam]



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

Milanezi

New member
Mar 2, 2009
619
0
0
lacktheknack said:
Milanezi said:
Anyway, very weak review, you can't blame GTA for having "scumbag criminals" as main characters anymore than you can blame Superman for being almost unstoppable. It's one thing to rage about the "scumbags" being "scumbags" due to POOR writing, it's another thing to complain, well that they look like cruel egotistical criminals...
Lowering the score because you don't like the subject matter is entirely valid.
No it's not, it's subjective, subjectivism has no place in reviews. Imagine when you were back in college, your teacher couldn't give you a zero because "Well, you did give the right answer. But I hate the color BLUE, and sadly you wrote with a blue pen, so here, you get half the score." That's why I say he CAN judge by "the characters are too cruel and that does not fit the reality around them because of this and that", he CAN'T go with a hollow "I don't like bad guys so I'll punish the game".

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

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

Hover Hand Mode

New member
Sep 14, 2013
51
0
0
This is why star/number ratings are useless in game reviews. Read the words. Don't obsess over the number.
Then again, my opinion of any new GTA game is essentially "people still play GTA?" I suppose I'll derive some entertainment from it once people start running Twitch streams while trying to glitch the game out.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Wow...

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

Jim gets flamed for giving it 9/10.


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

-Axle-

New member
Jun 30, 2011
49
0
0
I kind of have to agree with some of the criticism people are levying against the reviewer (Greg) on this one, and I would say its almost on level with saying you didn't like Pulp Fiction because the people in it are reprehensible. That's not to say you can't dislike Pulp Fiction, but that kind of criticism seems more aimed at the subject, and not the game/movie itself.

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

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

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

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

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
TheKasp said:
Wow...

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

Jim gets flamed for giving it 9/10.

[picture see above]

The gaming community, one has to love thee...
Actually I would say that her review is really good. She also has problems with some moral scenes, but she can see past her own view and recommend it for other players (okay, she likes it as well...)
She has an opinion, but doesnt let it get in the way of her professionalism.

Also, those youtube-clowns are the worst...
 

Anthadlas Babyeater

New member
Feb 26, 2013
24
0
0
lacktheknack said:
Anthadlas Babyeater said:
lacktheknack said:
Anthadlas Babyeater said:
lacktheknack said:
Milanezi said:
Anyway, very weak review, you can't blame GTA for having "scumbag criminals" as main characters anymore than you can blame Superman for being almost unstoppable. It's one thing to rage about the "scumbags" being "scumbags" due to POOR writing, it's another thing to complain, well that they look like cruel egotistical criminals...
Lowering the score because you don't like the subject matter is entirely valid.
Not when the subject matter is delivered in an appropriate way, It's like complaining that you don't like Skyrim because it has too many Dragons and fantasy RPG's are boring.

GTA 5 is a game that sets out to show the story of 3 criminals who want money, respect and power, If you don't like that premise then don't play or review the game. Rather than forcing yourself through a game based on a premise you know you won't like and then writing a review on that game that would clearly be biased against it.
Sounds good to me. However, he played it, he didn't like a key aspect of it and it badly affected the score. Such is life, and it's really not worth having the aneurysm that some people are having over it.

Remember, people, the final score has no bearing on real life. I think everyone is forgetting this.
Review scores can easily have a bearing on Rockstars final sales however, even if it is a good game some people won't buy it based on a bad review, which is unfair to the developers as they can make a good game but still have no control over a reviewer that dislikes it for moral reasons and puts other people off from buying it.
But this isn't a "bad review". According to the Escapist's Star Standards, 3 1/2 = "deeply flawed but very good game" or "notably above average game". In this case, it's probably the former.

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

As for whether this review has a major effect on game sales: No, not really.
But it is still a pity that the rating considers the game to be deeply flawed because of the reviewers personal feelings towards the game rather than a technical aspect. I think a game rating needs to be based on how functional a game is and how well it works as a game because personal feelings will be different from person to person and aren't quantifiable.

Reviewers should ofc give their personal opinion about a game but it shouldn't affect the game rating as those feelings are only valid to the person feeling them.
 

ColeusRattus

New member
Apr 16, 2009
220
0
0
well, at least, with the "scumbag protagonists", they literally kill the ludonarrative dissonance that plagued part 4 especially.

You don't feel as out of character when you go on a killing spree and cause some havoc.
 

Aardvaarkman

I am the one who eats ants!
Jul 14, 2011
1,262
0
0
DVS BSTrD said:
Breaking Bad the videogame?
Well, Breaking Bad actually begins with Walter being a sympathetic character and ostensibly the "good guy" and depicts his long spiral into madness and atrocity (while Pinkman's character arc goes in the opposite direction). So, it's rather more complex than GTA V sounds.

Still looking forward to it, especially for the sandbox aspects and flying planes, etc. But that street chatter does sound like it will be banal and irritating. Hopefully there will be some good tunes on the radio.
 

shrekfan246

Not actually a Japanese pop star
May 26, 2011
6,374
0
0
Riobux said:
erttheking said:
So, your main problem with it is that the main characters are completely evil? Actually...I have to say I kinda like that idea. To quote Yahtzee "Sometimes it's gratifying to play as an evil hate ridden fuck instead of a snarky self righteous pretty boy." So yeah. I respect your opinion, but I think I'll be giving this game a crack.
I'm mostly amused that "you play as bad people" is a worthy justification to penalise it 1 1/2 stars. It's like panning Silent Hill 2 because:
James Sunderland turns out to be a complete bastard.
Or giving Payday 2 a low score because "you shoot police officers".

I just find it hilarious that contrary to the website name, escapism isn't good if it's pretending to be the bad guy. However, they're allowed their opinion, and I'm allowed to look elsewhere for reviews.
Any competent reviewer won't go into a game with a review scored at 5/5 or 10/10, and then start docking points based on things they didn't like.

It's not 'penalized' because "you play as bad people". It's a point of contention that Tito didn't think the "bad people" had a good enough narrative motivation to drive their actions. You can still sympathize with a "bad" character (as in, morally reprehensible) and in fact, if they're a well-written character then you often should.

If anything, the review states that the game was good enough despite the narrative issues that Greg still came out of it with a positive impression.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Milanezi said:
lacktheknack said:
Milanezi said:
Anyway, very weak review, you can't blame GTA for having "scumbag criminals" as main characters anymore than you can blame Superman for being almost unstoppable. It's one thing to rage about the "scumbags" being "scumbags" due to POOR writing, it's another thing to complain, well that they look like cruel egotistical criminals...
Lowering the score because you don't like the subject matter is entirely valid.
No it's not, it's subjective, subjectivism has no place in reviews. Imagine when you were back in college, your teacher couldn't give you a zero because "Well, you did give the right answer. But I hate the color BLUE, and sadly you wrote with a blue pen, so here, you get half the score." That's why I say he CAN judge by "the characters are too cruel and that does not fit the reality around them because of this and that", he CAN'T go with a hollow "I don't like bad guys so I'll punish the game".

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

I didn't get the sense that GTA V's reviewer despised the violence of the game, nor am I complaining about the game not getting 5/5. For all I know, the "missing stars" might be for an objective reason. Be that as it may, it is stupid to criticize a game founded on violence because it is "too violent"...
Subjectivism is the entire POINT of a review. "Did you enjoy the game? (y/n) Why? (reasons)"

Too many factors are subjective. If you're supposed to leave subjective items at the door, then you cannot comment on:

-Story quality
-Control quality (except in extreme circumstances)
-Graphic style
-Gameplay effectiveness
-Interest levels
-Music
-Sound design
-Engine quality (except in extreme circumstances)
-Dialog
-Map quality
etc.

There's no point in trying to change the definition of "subjective" just because you dislike one aspect of a review. If it bothers you that much, then you're better off reading a different one. Try Gamespot, they're currently being raked over the coals for giving it a 9.

HalloHerrNoob said:
lacktheknack said:
Oh just shut up! First of all, it stopped being funny around the first time you did it, secondly it wont stop any trolls, thirdly its debatably. I mean a review should inform people if they will like the game or not...this review does not. Especially in this case it begs for a second opinion. or just a removal of the final score. Just say "hey, I didnt like it, but if you are fine with being an asshole, youll love it. Or split the score or sth.
Using a score here is like asking someone who just loves fast trash movies to rate Citizen kane. It just doesnt make much sense.
No. Bringing up DA2 annoys me endlessly, so I will repeat the headslam until people stop. It's not meant to be funny, it's meant to drive a point across.

And no, a review should NOT tell you whether you'll like it or not. You may as well ask that it bake your favorite cookies while it's at it. A review is entirely there for the reviewer to say whether or not they liked it, and the reader is supposed to read multiple reviews to gain a feel of what the game contains and what there is consensus on, and whether it's something they'll enjoy.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
HalloHerrNoob said:
Actually I would say that her review is really good. She also has problems with some moral scenes, but she can see past her on view and recommend it for other players (okay, she likes it as well...)
She has an opinion, but doesnt let it get in the way of her professionalism.

Also, those youtube-clowns are the worst...
So you have no clue what a review is.

Every review is opinionated. Every. Single. One. You can't review something without having an opinion because this will just amount in an evaluation of technicality - Is it well optimised for the platform? Are the controls functional? Are there bugs? Done. This is an objective review. It contains nothing about story, characters, enjoyment of the gameplay and everything else.

If someone is put off a game to such an extent that he loses all his enjoyment of it because of bad characters then he is very well within his rights to give his review of the game a score he deems fitting. Because I tell you, every single 10/10 review has their opinions as much in their way as this one.

Youtube-clowns? You mean gaming community.

Milanezi said:
No it's not, it's subjective, subjectivism has no place in reviews.
Same for you. You seem to have no clue what a review is.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Anthadlas Babyeater said:
But it is still a pity that the rating considers the game to be deeply flawed because of the reviewers personal feelings towards the game rather than a technical aspect. I think a game rating needs to be based on how functional a game is and how well it works as a game because personal feelings will be different from person to person and aren't quantifiable.

Reviewers should ofc give their personal opinion about a game but it shouldn't affect the game rating as those feelings are only valid to the person feeling them.
That's a fair opinion to have. I just feel the other way. :D

All I know is that I agree with him on how vile protagonists can ruin an experience, so I'm glad he brought it up.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
lacktheknack said:
And no, a review should NOT tell you whether you'll like it or not. You may as well ask that it bake your favorite cookies while it's at it. A review is entirely there for the reviewer to say whether or not they liked it, and the reader is supposed to read multiple reviews to gain a feel of what the game contains and what there is consensus on, and whether it's something they'll enjoy.
Well, no....shure you cant tell me if Ill like a certain kind of cookie, but you can tell me if the cookie is well made, if it is healthy, if contains good ingridients and so on and than I can find out if I like it or not.
But it makes no sense that you eat a banaa cookie if you dont like banana and than complain half of the "review" about how it tastes like banana....that doesnt help me at all.
Its just not professional.

TheKasp said:
So you have no clue what a review is.

Every review is opinionated. Every. Single. One. You can't review something without having an opinion because this will just amount in an evaluation of technicality - Is it well optimised for the platform? Are the controls functional? Are there bugs? Done. This is an objective review. It contains nothing about story, characters, enjoyment of the gameplay and everything else.

If someone is put off a game to such an extent that he loses all his enjoyment of it because of bad characters then he is very well within his rights to give his review of the game a score he deems fitting. Because I tell you, every single 10/10 review has their opinions as much in their way as this one.

Youtube-clowns? You mean gaming community.
Ehm...no, thats an opinion. A review is an evaluation (check your dictionary)...its a difference. So come down from your high horse!

The thing is that half the review seems to talk about his problems with the characters (btw...something I havent read in another review), completely overshadowing things like graphic, controlls, missions, (overall) story, gameplay, atmo and so on.
It sounds more like a column than a review.
 

saxman234

New member
Nov 23, 2011
93
0
0
Milanezi said:
lacktheknack said:
Milanezi said:
Anyway, very weak review, you can't blame GTA for having "scumbag criminals" as main characters anymore than you can blame Superman for being almost unstoppable. It's one thing to rage about the "scumbags" being "scumbags" due to POOR writing, it's another thing to complain, well that they look like cruel egotistical criminals...
Lowering the score because you don't like the subject matter is entirely valid.
No it's not, it's subjective, subjectivism has no place in reviews. Imagine when you were back in college, your teacher couldn't give you a zero because "Well, you did give the right answer. But I hate the color BLUE, and sadly you wrote with a blue pen, so here, you get half the score." That's why I say he CAN judge by "the characters are too cruel and that does not fit the reality around them because of this and that", he CAN'T go with a hollow "I don't like bad guys so I'll punish the game".

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

I didn't get the sense that GTA V's reviewer despised the violence of the game, nor am I complaining about the game not getting 5/5. For all I know, the "missing stars" might be for an objective reason. Be that as it may, it is stupid to criticize a game founded on violence because it is "too violent"...
Reviews are criticism they are all subjective. This is not a news story it is a person's opinion on a game. If they feel like the terrible characters hurt his own enjoyment of the game that is a perfectly valid argument. What do you people want in a review, just a laundry list of features that the game contains. The game contains competent shooting controls, the game contains competent driving controls, instant 5 stars. Just saying that the shooting feels good is a subjective statement. I thought the driving in GTA4 was perfectly competent and I don't remember having much trouble, and the myriad of reviews at the time did not have a problem either, but now everyone complains about it. Everything in a review is subjective.
 

MBurdock

New member
Aug 7, 2012
62
0
0
Milanezi, if you're looking for objectivity in reviews, what would you expect reviews to cover? Presumably, graphics, controls, framerates, glitches, etc. Those are generally pretty objective.

What about the aesthetic visual appeal of the game? What about the appeal of the story? What about how much fun it is? I don't see how you could truly be objective on those fronts, yet they're clearly a large part of many modern games.

Reviews can be subjective. See movie reviews, restaurant reviews, wine reviews, etc. What matters in for the quality of these reviews is that they clearly justify their score by providing a coherent argument. I think that has been done here.
 

donphantome35

New member
Apr 28, 2012
3
0
0
I think it's good to have at least some correlation between gameplay and story, especially in a sandbox like GTA. If you give the player an opportunity to drive a tank at top speed down a freeway or play bumper cars with helicopters, they'll sure as hell try. (I know I did). But giving the protagonist a strong moral code and then allowing the player to make him do silly shit like this is not a good idea. It certainly didn't work for IV. Now it seems that Rockstar is trying to give us characters that we don't feel bad about sending on rampages. Their world is even more twisted, their motivations even less clear; they get off on murdering people,driving cars and doing zany shit, just like the player.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
HalloHerrNoob said:
lacktheknack said:
And no, a review should NOT tell you whether you'll like it or not. You may as well ask that it bake your favorite cookies while it's at it. A review is entirely there for the reviewer to say whether or not they liked it, and the reader is supposed to read multiple reviews to gain a feel of what the game contains and what there is consensus on, and whether it's something they'll enjoy.
Well, no....shure you cant tell me if Ill like a certain kind of cookie, but you can tell me if the cookie is well made, if it is healthy, if contains good ingridients and so on and than I can find out if I like it or not.
But it makes no sense that you eat a banaa cookie if you dont like banana and than complain half of the "review" about how it tastes like banana....that doesnt help me at all.
Its just not professional.
However, if one is used to a standard banana (in this case, antiheroes) and this cookie is made with plantains (in this case, scumbags), then that IS a reason to be unhappy with it. (Seriously... scumbags and plantains are gross.)
 

Shadowstar38

New member
Jul 20, 2011
2,204
0
0
Greg Tito said:
Ranorak said:
Question, IS there some sort of Checkpoint system with the missions?

If not, I'm going to skip this game all together.
I HATE having to drive for 10 minutes to the same fucking place, with the same fucking dialogue, for the 4th fucking time, because I got shot while I was trying to find cover, but instead just bumped into stuff in GTA 4.
Yes, there is a checkpoint system, and the missions are generally fun.

Greg
Why do you sigh your name at the bottom when it's already off to the side?

OT: It's GTA. Of course I'm picking this up. Whenever I manage to get a new console. PC gamers, I finally feel your pain.
 

braincore02

New member
Jan 14, 2008
293
0
0
If your main complaint was playing as morally reprehensible bad guys, I don't think I'll be bothered at all. Bring on the depravity!
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Today's Episode of Jimquisition unintentionally answers this review.
 

Riobux

New member
Apr 15, 2009
1,955
0
0
shrekfan246 said:
Any competent reviewer won't go into a game with a review scored at 5/5 or 10/10, and then start docking points based on things they didn't like.

It's not 'penalized' because "you play as bad people". It's a point of contention that Tito didn't think the "bad people" had a good enough narrative motivation to drive their actions. You can still sympathize with a "bad" character (as in, morally reprehensible) and in fact, if they're a well-written character then you often should.

If anything, the review states that the game was good enough despite the narrative issues that Greg still came out of it with a positive impression.
I think the first problem is something of a personal grudge I'll have to admit: I've found too many times reviewers have jumped to say "this guy is morally reprehensible and has no motivation or reason why people should look beyond it", when in truth the reasons have lied open and exposed. Kane and Lynch in Kane And Lynch: Dead Men is such a symbol of this. Then again, Kane And Lynch: Dead Men has some of the best writing about personally and gives other games depicting criminals (e.g. GTA IV) a run for their money, while reviewers tended to write up how the story/writing was one of it's main weak points. There's also the argument of "why do you need to look beyond to have a bloody good time?", see Payday: The Heist as an example of this. I'll also admit a personal love for playing the bad guy.

The second thing is I actually looked into the review curious of what could level GTA V so low compared to other reviews. I find it usually more insightful to see someone point out all the problems of a game rather than observe how it does everything well. I like critics rather than reviewers. So when I stumble in like a drunk uncle who was last seen telling his brother and sister-in-law to kill themselves to see how the kids are doing, and then witness the core complaint, then I can't help but sigh loudly.

The third thing is, quite simply, The Escapist tends to be a reviewer who gives games maybe a bit of a higher grade than they deserve. It's far and few they bring out the 3 stars or below. So when it's GTA V that nearly stoops to the barrier, I am in awe.

So when I saw this, I think I was covered in both amusement and disappointment. Maybe I expected too much? Maybe I thought there would be something more here?
 

poiu

New member
Sep 16, 2013
1
0
0
Greg, I think you're missing the point why the characters in GTA V are the way they supposedly are. They are adapted to the core element of the game: the gameplay. And they seem to be created to reflect the way people play the game. In GTA players entertain themselves by killing people with no reason whatsoever except for that it's fun to virtually do so. You would have a very valid point for discussion if you questioned violence as a form of entertainment gameplay-wise. But I think it's weak to justify 'killing to complete a goal' while judging story and characters that complement this kind of gameplay.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
HalloHerrNoob said:
Ehm...no, thats an opinion. A review is an evaluation (check your dictionary)...its a difference. So come down from your high horse!

The thing is that half the review seems to talk about his problems with the characters (btw...something I havent read in another review), completely overshadowing things like graphic, controlls, missions, (overall) story, gameplay, atmo and so on.
It sounds more like a column than a review.
It varies strongly dependant on what you actually review. A scientific evaluation of a topic won't include opinion based material unless it is used in some from of stochastic.
Anything that includes aspects that have no objective metrics to follow you will always have opinionbased evaluation. While you of course still have an objective aspect in form of the technical side you will also have a subjective aspect that evaluates how those parts work for the reviewer. Especially movie, music, book and game reviews are in this category and games, where the whole entertainment value is pretty much subjective, fall into a category that make every game review just an opinion. A well stated and evaluated opinion but still just that.

I would suggest you get off your high horse and thing for a minute.

How do you judge a story subjective. Atmosphere, aesthetics. Fuck, even controls have a big subjective value to them.
 

zerragonoss

New member
Oct 15, 2009
333
0
0
lacktheknack said:
Thanks for fighting the good fight. the idea of subjective reviews is just crazy, I will just go on believing that miracle of sounds songs are the best reviews the net.

On topic great review I see that my lack of interest in gta is not due to change.
 

ellieallegro

New member
Mar 8, 2013
69
0
0
Meh, so it's Hotline Miami with good graphics and cars. You are supposed to hate the characters.... that is kinda the point. It's holding up a mirror to the glorification of violence and how some people are just scumbags. No real reason why, they just are. It's a good life lesson if you haven't already learned it.

I will wait for it on PC and play it when it has a proper (upscaled) resolution.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
zerragonoss said:
lacktheknack said:
Thanks for fighting the good fight. the idea of subjective reviews is just crazy, I will just go on believing that miracle of sounds songs are the best reviews the net.
To be fair, Miracle of Sound's songs are the best reviews on the net. :p
 

Shanahanapp

New member
Apr 8, 2013
126
0
0
I have to say I was worried about this. Definitely less excited about the game though I'll still end up playing it probably. Lack of motivation for characters, especially motivation to do bad things, can definitely be a deal breaker. And that scene with Trevor seems to highlight everything I hate about crime-based characters done wrong. Also I have noticed that everyone seems to have skipped over his criticisms of actual gameplay mechanics.
 

Milanezi

New member
Mar 2, 2009
619
0
0
TheKasp said:
HalloHerrNoob said:
Actually I would say that her review is really good. She also has problems with some moral scenes, but she can see past her on view and recommend it for other players (okay, she likes it as well...)
She has an opinion, but doesnt let it get in the way of her professionalism.

Also, those youtube-clowns are the worst...
So you have no clue what a review is.

Every review is opinionated. Every. Single. One. You can't review something without having an opinion because this will just amount in an evaluation of technicality - Is it well optimised for the platform? Are the controls functional? Are there bugs? Done. This is an objective review. It contains nothing about story, characters, enjoyment of the gameplay and everything else.

If someone is put off a game to such an extent that he loses all his enjoyment of it because of bad characters then he is very well within his rights to give his review of the game a score he deems fitting. Because I tell you, every single 10/10 review has their opinions as much in their way as this one.

Youtube-clowns? You mean gaming community.

Milanezi said:
No it's not, it's subjective, subjectivism has no place in reviews.
Same for you. You seem to have no clue what a review is.
No, I don't think YOU understand what subjectivism is. It's one thing to say "the characters are badly written: the whole story is a romance drama, and everything leads you to believe your characters are pretty nice guys, only when you get to the gameplay itself you're forced to commit extremely violent acts that have no place in the story that was set", see, this guy OBJECTIVELY reviewed character and story, his taste doesn't matter, what matters is "does it make sense in the games environment? and does it deliver its promise (which is as near as "is it fun" as you can get)?"; what we got here instead was "the game is a crime drama where you control three psychos. I hate crime, I hate raw - virtual - criminals, I have a high moral standards. this is a game of ill repute, I hate it" in short, he doesn't know what he's talking about, it's GTA, you don't review CoD and complain about the use of guns, know what I'm saying? He did not tell us if the characters he hates so much fit that universe or not. Look, I HATE soccer, i hate it with all my guts, I'm NEVER getting near a soccer video game, and I'm never gonna review one because I KNOW I'll say it's an awful game, even if it's good, I'll be biased, but I know that because I'm self-conscious that i don't like that sport. If he's conscious that he doesn't like "scumbag criminals" (like 90% of GTA's protagonists) he shouldn't be reviewing a game from a series known for that sorta character... Subjectivism is never right nor wrong, it's personal taste, you think it's right to demerit ANYTHING due to your personal taste? No, subjectivism is what you keep to YOURSELF to make your OWN decision. You can't argue against subjectivism exactly due to that, I can't tell you what you should or not enjoy, but I can argue with you, for instance, why the processor of console A is better than console B, and I might even be wrong, or maybe we decide that one is better for shadows, the other for texture. Of course he can lay out his subjective view in the review, but he can't judge on that, and he MUST build something on top of that, which he most certainly did not do.
 

The Artificially Prolonged

Random Semi-Frequent Poster
Jul 15, 2008
2,755
0
0
I'd like to think that everyone was above the whole fuss about review scores thing at this point, but then I guess that is just wishful thinking on my part. A quick look at metacritic shows several "perfect" scores for GTAV which I imagine will be more than enough to validate your expectations and pre-order if this review doesn't do that for you.

Now on to the real important stuff, the actual content of review. I guess it is always going to be a problem when you base a story around characters that do bad things for little justification, that some will feel that a line is crossed where sympathy for the characters becomes impossible and they become reprehensible. This is especially true of violent criminals as often you can boil down the many reasons why someone may commit these acts to self interest. Of course it is not always necessary that characters be sympathetic for them to be entertaining. So does that make it wrong to mark down an otherwise good game based on the fact that you find the characters horrible? I'd say no, it can be a fair criticism if the reviewer feels that it hurts the game. Is Greg right in this? I don't know, I've not played the game. I'll reserve judgement on the characters until I get the chance to experience them myself.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
in every gta i find a tank and drive through the city. these people are actually better than i am. . .
 

Stabby Joe

New member
Jul 30, 2008
1,545
0
0
When I got to the end of the the review and saw the score I raised an eyebrow, mostly because this was actually the first review I read. Jarring really when all others are near universally perfect so far.

Either way I'll wait for the PC version. Don't get me wrong, I do want to play this game and I'll no doubt love it, very much so but there's a good chance the PC may be the best version. I've still got other games for now.

Not that this post matters, I can already see the internet storm coming this way, should be interesting really.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
The Artificially Prolonged said:
I'd like to think that everyone was above the whole fuss about review scores thing at this point, but then I guess that is just wishful thinking on my part. A quick look at metacritic shows several "perfect" scores for GTAV which I imagine will be more than enough to validate your expectations and pre-order if this review doesn't do that for you.
Its not really about the score (although as I said it begs for a split score or none at all).
Its just that half of the review seems to talk about his moral problems with the game, which, in my opinion, is rather a column and less a review (an evaluation, of the whole product).
 

Nachtmahr

New member
Feb 17, 2011
64
0
0
saxman234 said:
Isn't a review supposed to be a critique of a game and not just a laundry list of what the game does? Are reviews really journalism? I think of journalism as more like news stories. Reviews are critiques. All reviews are subjective. One person may find the controls smooth, and feel like the cars handle well and other people may hate it. Handling and gameplay are part of reviews but that is not the only thing that make up a review. Reviews are more about the player's experience. Just because this review brings up new points that you do not care about does not mean everyone else does not care about this. I found this review interesting because it discussed questionable game design choices Rockstar made that dissuaded Greg Tito from enjoying the game more. Is this not important enough to discuss?

Also, Jim Sterling gave Deadly Premonition a 10, which controls and feels terrible. Should that review be taken off metacritic? That game is great for other reasons but not for the controls or even basic gameplay.
Sorry, but when I read a review, I want objective criticisms of the game. A reviewer can point out that he did not enjoy something, but it should not affect his actual score. The only thing that should affect score are actual overarching flaws, like bad controls or confusing story-telling or the like. "I couldn't sympathize with the character waaaah 3.5/5" does not come across as professional. "The cars handled like they were greased with sunflower oil 3.5/5" would be a valid reason for me to mark a game down.

A review score should reflect the quality of a game, not be marred by personal taste. A special section at the end of the review can certainly be used to explain some misgivings of the reviewer, as Greg did. But those misgivings are reflected in the review score.

I have read plenty of other reviews of this game, most of which do contain criticisms and reviewers pointing out things that felt off to them. But overall score in a professional review should always be used to show how worthy the game is.

Someone here said that Kane and Lynch got 3/5 stars from the Escapist. That puts GTAV half a star above a truly terrible game.

There is a reason most user reviews on Metacritic read like "I didn't like this and this and this 2/10." That's not a review. That's an opinion.

Gred did not write a review. He wrote an opinion. A good reviewer, for me, can write a unique and witty sounding review while not compromising his ability to give information.

Say what you want about IGN, but their review of this actually told me what the game is like. They told me how the cars handle and how the gunplay goes. The IGN review made clear that you are playing fucked up people, touching upon their flaws and why aspects of them sometimes feel off. But the ultimate review score actually reflects the game.

And you know what? Greg's review of Dragon Age 2 back then actually gave me the final push to buy it. I thought "Wow, how can so much genuine enthusiasm and great personal experience be wrong?" Guess who wishes she'd listened to all those other reviewers, who objectively said the story was incoherent, the environments were terrible and dialogue flat?
 

Weaver

Overcaffeinated
Apr 28, 2008
8,977
0
0
A reviewer's personal preferences SHOULD affect the score of the game. That's what a review is. Someone's opinion on the game. It is impossible to give an objective score.

The GTA IV series, in my opinion, got increasingly worse the more serious they tried to make it. Rockstar couldn't write their way out of a box, and I'm not at all surprised Tito took offense to their writing.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Mahoshonen said:
Here it is, folks, the absolute nadir of the gaming community!

I don't even get what your point is? Are you saying that context excuses poor characterization? Because that is very wrong. There is a reason why I enjoy a character like Kratos but dislike Kane & Lynch despite both being morally bankrupt. Or if you need a movie example, try watching Red Zone Cuba and compare it to The Goodfellas. Two sets of characters that by conventional terms are horrible people, but one group is infinitely more enjoyable to watch.

Also, selective typing in ALLCAPS is never a way to enhance your argument.
Wow....first of all, saying that this is the nadir of the gaming community just shows that you have no idea....

Secondly, you dont get our argumenst at all....he doesnt talk about how the characters are badly written, or charcterised, but mostly about how he doesnt like their actions. There is a difference.
Also, yes, context can excuse poor characterisation. Mario has no personality at all (mostly), every Team Ninja game is a walking pile of clichees and sexism...does that mean that every Super Mario/Team Ninja game needs to get 0/5?

"Trevor's introductory scene begins with him screwing a scabby woman from behind, and then stomping her boyfriend in the face until he's dead when the cuckolded man has the nerve to confront him. See? Charming!"
..he does not say that the character is badly characterised or written. Just that he doesnt like his actions.

Also, regard this weeks Jimquisition.
 

EvilMaggot

New member
Sep 18, 2008
1,430
0
0
everyone go to gamespot and check the review there... go to the comment section.. but i must warn you.. remember a anti-hate shield, its insane! because the game only got 9.0/10 :p and not 10/10 .. so everyone have gone mental xD

OT:
I dont care about reviews.. tomorrow im about to go into a world where i am the main character(s) and i decide what the hell i want to do :) and by satan its gonna be amazing ^^
 

disappointed

New member
Sep 14, 2011
97
0
0
Who'd write a GTA review, eh? I've seen people getting mardy over 9/10 scores, never mind this. The whole series has problems and reviewers should not feel pressured away from assessing them.

GTA started as a cartoonish parody of crime films. Over time Rockstar have tried to bring serious story-telling to their games but have struggled to marry this to the ultra-violent gameplay. Nowhere is this more apparent than in GTA, which depicts events that scarcely dip their toes in the waters of reality.
 

MrBaskerville

New member
Mar 15, 2011
871
0
0
Milanezi said:
lacktheknack said:
Milanezi said:
Anyway, very weak review, you can't blame GTA for having "scumbag criminals" as main characters anymore than you can blame Superman for being almost unstoppable. It's one thing to rage about the "scumbags" being "scumbags" due to POOR writing, it's another thing to complain, well that they look like cruel egotistical criminals...
Lowering the score because you don't like the subject matter is entirely valid.
No it's not, it's subjective, subjectivism has no place in reviews. Imagine when you were back in college, your teacher couldn't give you a zero because "Well, you did give the right answer. But I hate the color BLUE, and sadly you wrote with a blue pen, so here, you get half the score." That's why I say he CAN judge by "the characters are too cruel and that does not fit the reality around them because of this and that", he CAN'T go with a hollow "I don't like bad guys so I'll punish the game".

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

I didn't get the sense that GTA V's reviewer despised the violence of the game, nor am I complaining about the game not getting 5/5. For all I know, the "missing stars" might be for an objective reason. Be that as it may, it is stupid to criticize a game founded on violence because it is "too violent"...
okay, so if a reviewer hated the story and thought the characters were annoying he would still have to praise that part because the general consensus says it's cool? Why do we need several review sites if they all have to be objective, they are supposed to say the same afterall :p.

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

Anthadlas Babyeater

New member
Feb 26, 2013
24
0
0
Weaver said:
A reviewer's personal preferences SHOULD affect the score of the game. That's what a review is. Someone's opinion on the game.
re·view
Noun
A formal assessment or examination of something.

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

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Anthadlas Babyeater said:
Weaver said:
A reviewer's personal preferences SHOULD affect the score of the game. That's what a review is. Someone's opinion on the game.
re·view
Noun
A formal assessment or examination of something.

...does not preclude opinion.

o·pin·ion
Noun
A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
...is not mutually exclusive with a review.

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

wAriot

New member
Jan 18, 2013
174
0
0
Criminals are bad people, more news at eleven.

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

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

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

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

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,760
0
0
Ultratwinkie said:
So its basically like every GTA ever?
I thought Niko was a scumbag, so my first thought was similar to this (ignoring, of course, that you said Roman. I hated him but assumed we were supposed to).

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

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

Anthadlas Babyeater

New member
Feb 26, 2013
24
0
0
lacktheknack said:
Anthadlas Babyeater said:
Weaver said:
A reviewer's personal preferences SHOULD affect the score of the game. That's what a review is. Someone's opinion on the game.
re·view
Noun
A formal assessment or examination of something.

...does not preclude opinion.

o·pin·ion
Noun
A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
...is not mutually exclusive with a review.

If reviews are not supposed to include writer's thoughts and emotions, then I'm done reading reviews. Thankfully, they are.
Assessing or examining something means looking at it for faults or potential flaws. Thinking that the characters are too violent is not a flaw with the game if they are designed to be that way. It is only a flaw when based on the reviewers personal morals and not applicible to anybody else playing the game.

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

shrekfan246

Not actually a Japanese pop star
May 26, 2011
6,374
0
0
Anthadlas Babyeater said:
lacktheknack said:
Anthadlas Babyeater said:
Weaver said:
A reviewer's personal preferences SHOULD affect the score of the game. That's what a review is. Someone's opinion on the game.
re·view
Noun
A formal assessment or examination of something.

...does not preclude opinion.

o·pin·ion
Noun
A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
...is not mutually exclusive with a review.

If reviews are not supposed to include writer's thoughts and emotions, then I'm done reading reviews. Thankfully, they are.
Assessing or examining something means looking at it for faults or potential flaws. Thinking that the characters are too violent is not a flaw with the game if they are designed to be that way. It is only a flaw when based on the reviewers personal morals and not applicible to anybody else playing the game.
Except, you know, when they happen to possibly share said morals.

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

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

MarsProbe

Circuitboard Seahorse
Dec 13, 2008
2,372
0
0
OK, so I had pre-ordered this game a while back and am heading into town early tomorrow morning before work starts so no review would influence my buying decision but anyway, given that the recommendation states that I'll be able

to play as characters with no justifiable motivation for doing awful things to people.
you've managed to sell the game to me (again) anyway. Thanks Escapist!
 

DarkhoIlow

New member
Dec 31, 2009
2,531
0
0
This is history repeating itself, nothing new. I appreciate your honesty Greg, even though I was a bit angered by the whole "DA2 5/5 bit" but I got over it and understand that it's your review.

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

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Anthadlas Babyeater said:
lacktheknack said:
Anthadlas Babyeater said:
Weaver said:
A reviewer's personal preferences SHOULD affect the score of the game. That's what a review is. Someone's opinion on the game.
re·view
Noun
A formal assessment or examination of something.

...does not preclude opinion.

o·pin·ion
Noun
A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
...is not mutually exclusive with a review.

If reviews are not supposed to include writer's thoughts and emotions, then I'm done reading reviews. Thankfully, they are.
Assessing or examining something means looking at it for faults or potential flaws. Thinking that the characters are too violent is not a flaw with the game if they are designed to be that way. It is only a flaw when based on the reviewers personal morals and not applicible to anybody else playing the game.

I could understand if this was a review on youtube or some other site, with just a guy giving his opinions on the game but on a proffessional review site it is out of place and very amatuer
But I'm very happy they said it, because it's directly applicable to me. If it wasn't in the review, then where was I going to hear it?

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

-Axle-

New member
Jun 30, 2011
49
0
0
I find it really interesting to read how different people's expectations are with respect to video game reviews.

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

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

Anthadlas Babyeater

New member
Feb 26, 2013
24
0
0
shrekfan246 said:
Anthadlas Babyeater said:
lacktheknack said:
Anthadlas Babyeater said:
Weaver said:
A reviewer's personal preferences SHOULD affect the score of the game. That's what a review is. Someone's opinion on the game.
re·view
Noun
A formal assessment or examination of something.

...does not preclude opinion.

o·pin·ion
Noun
A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
...is not mutually exclusive with a review.

If reviews are not supposed to include writer's thoughts and emotions, then I'm done reading reviews. Thankfully, they are.
Assessing or examining something means looking at it for faults or potential flaws. Thinking that the characters are too violent is not a flaw with the game if they are designed to be that way. It is only a flaw when based on the reviewers personal morals and not applicible to anybody else playing the game.
Except, you know, when they happen to possibly share said morals.

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

Video game reviews are not the same as academic or scientific reviews.
One of the many reasons people will never take a review like this seriously if they are unable to be objective and provide us with facts for it being a good or bad game, rather than just stating their opinion like a newspaper column
 

Milanezi

New member
Mar 2, 2009
619
0
0
MrBaskerville said:
Milanezi said:
lacktheknack said:
Milanezi said:
Anyway, very weak review, you can't blame GTA for having "scumbag criminals" as main characters anymore than you can blame Superman for being almost unstoppable. It's one thing to rage about the "scumbags" being "scumbags" due to POOR writing, it's another thing to complain, well that they look like cruel egotistical criminals...
Lowering the score because you don't like the subject matter is entirely valid.
No it's not, it's subjective, subjectivism has no place in reviews. Imagine when you were back in college, your teacher couldn't give you a zero because "Well, you did give the right answer. But I hate the color BLUE, and sadly you wrote with a blue pen, so here, you get half the score." That's why I say he CAN judge by "the characters are too cruel and that does not fit the reality around them because of this and that", he CAN'T go with a hollow "I don't like bad guys so I'll punish the game".

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

I didn't get the sense that GTA V's reviewer despised the violence of the game, nor am I complaining about the game not getting 5/5. For all I know, the "missing stars" might be for an objective reason. Be that as it may, it is stupid to criticize a game founded on violence because it is "too violent"...
okay, so if a reviewer hated the story and thought the characters were annoying he would still have to praise that part because the general consensus says it's cool? Why do we need several review sites if they all have to be objective, they are supposed to say the same afterall :p.

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

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

MBurdock

New member
Aug 7, 2012
62
0
0
Anthadlas Babyeater said:
Thinking that the characters are too violent is not a flaw with the game if they are designed to be that way. It is only a flaw when based on the reviewers personal morals and not applicible to anybody else playing the game.
Violent characters are clearly part of the intended design, so you could assess them on how well they carried it off. However, Rockstar probably had additional goals than effectively conveying that characters are violent. They wanted the game to be an enjoyable experience. The argument being made in this review is that the dislikeable characters made it a less enjoyable experience.

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

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

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

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