Zero Punctuation: Grand Theft Auto 5

[bigfatcarp93]

That ending bit about WWII was funnier then it should have been...

OT: I don't think Yahtzee will have to worry about getting flamed by GTA fans until this goes to Youtube. Escapists don't flame, they just make dry jokes about flame shields, use memes "ironically", and go "ugh, that is SO blase'" everytime someone mentions a game made after 2002.

I never really played GTA. Doesn't sound fun now, more than any time...

 

[ProfessorLayton]

I suppose we differ in opinion of what makes a good game, I base the quality of a game based on the enjoyment I had with it. Naturally I knock it for faults like crashes and lag spikes but if the experience is good enough, I'll still call it a good game.

Glad you clarified that, but at the same time why isn't something fun 'good'? Just curious here, because a lot of people define a game that is fun as being a game that is good. If you don't measure a game's quality by the fun you're having, what do you measure it by?

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

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

 

[tyriless]

That ending bit about WWII was funnier then it should have been...

OT: I don't think Yahtzee will have to worry about getting flamed by GTA fans until this goes to Youtube. Escapists don't flame, they just make dry jokes about flame shields, use memes "ironically", and go "ugh, that is SO blase'" everytime someone mentions a game made after 2002.

I never really played GTA. Doesn't sound fun now, more than any time...

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

 

[Goliath100]

Far Cry 3 is a great example. Sure, you can run around this huge island, but why would you? The only reason to explore is to find radio towers, which just reveal more of the map, and take over bases. I guess there's hunting too but nothing like GTA. Assassin's Creed is another example, where the only side missions just give you money and the only thing you use money on is buying things that give you more money.

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

 

[ProfessorLayton]

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

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

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

 

[Rad Party God]

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

 

[Muspelheim]

Ow! Why is this room so bright?

http://ak.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/941809/preview/stock-footage-render-of-film-projector-show-film-on-screen.jpg

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

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

 

[daveman247]

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

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


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

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

 

[-Dragmire-]

I suppose we differ in opinion of what makes a good game, I base the quality of a game based on the enjoyment I had with it. Naturally I knock it for faults like crashes and lag spikes but if the experience is good enough, I'll still call it a good game.

Glad you clarified that, but at the same time why isn't something fun 'good'? Just curious here, because a lot of people define a game that is fun as being a game that is good. If you don't measure a game's quality by the fun you're having, what do you measure it by?

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

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

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

 

[Goliath100]

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

How do you define "value" in game?

 

[ProfessorLayton]

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

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

 

[Carpenter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was unprofessional.

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

 

[Carpenter]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ProfessorLayton]

How do you define "value" in game?

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

 

[Jburton9]

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

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

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

 

[Carpenter]

First off, this is the first GTA game I've ever purchased.

Ah! Thank you. That does explain why you don't miss all of the side activities that were in IV that were stripped out of V, like pool and bowling.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Carpenter]

This whole "SR versus GTA" thing is nothing short of silly. It's like pretending that Skyrim and Dark Souls are competing games. A person is perfectly capable of enjoying both, I think I'm living proof of that. This whole idea that you need to knock one game because you like another is just childish.

It certainly is silly, but try explaining to my mother and grandmother that no matter which spaghetti sauce company you favour, you're still eating goddamn spaghetti. If this proves anything, it's that the details matter to some people. I enjoy a fuckton of different sauces and I've been warming up to GTA V through watching Let's Plays and Longplays - but the fact remains that my original post obviously details a personal judgment.

With cynicism and dry realism being all the rage in terms of game development, I found myself naturally gravitating towards the one title that offered me a break from all this. I'm still lukewarm towards GTA V largely because of its tone, not because I'm somehow unable to perceive that someone else might find its mechanics more rewarding.

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

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

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

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

 

[Hindkjaer]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[MrBaskerville]

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

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