Grand Theft Auto 5 Review - People Suck

[zerragonoss]

snip

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]

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]

snip

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.

 

[Shanahanapp]

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]

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.

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]

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.

 

[Stabby Joe]

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.

 

[Nachtmahr]

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]

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.

 

[EvilMaggot]

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 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]

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]

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 .

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]

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]

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]

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:

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]

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.