Grand Theft Auto 5 Review - People Suck

[-Axle-]

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.

 

[Anthadlas Babyeater]

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]

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]

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]

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:

Spoiler

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]

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.

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.

 

[lacktheknack]

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.

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.

 

[saxman234]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

 

[Riobux]

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]

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.