Grand Theft Auto 5 Review - People Suck

[lacktheknack]

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.

"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]

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]

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!

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]

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]

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.

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Milanezi]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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.