GTA V

[Dewar]

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. The three main characters of GTAV do terrible things merely to get paid, and deserve no sympathy.

 

This review quote from The Escapist actually makes me want to play the game.

[melmer]

Review round up

http://www.allgamesbeta.com/2013/09/grand-theft-auto-v-reviews-round-up.html

And iPhone app?

http://www.allgamesbeta.com/2013/09/gta-v-ifruit-app-released.html

Wow I've just watched

the game looks phenomenal (warning, I found this video a little spoilery)

[Erkki]

mmmmmmm like a warm bath

 

i wonder if he just didn't 'get 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.

Not every criticism must be based on technical achievement or triple-A values or whatever. Too early to critisize the critics before playing the game.

[Irishjohn]

 

Not every criticism must be based on technical achievement or triple-A values or whatever. Too early to critisize the critics before playing the game.

 

I agree. The question of "getting it" is an interesting one. GTA's big thing is satire and I would argue it's more successful than most "satire" at least if we're going by the old measure that the targets of said satire shouldn't realize they're being mocked... In that sense, good satire can easily be misunderstood as the puerility (in this case) that it targets.

 

Games are interesting of course because they imply culpability on the part of the player. It's also a valid concern as to whether or not the game is effective in what it's trying to do thematically and I think it's fine to be upset if the game is trying to have it both ways. As I've gotten older, I've found myself more alienated by games than before. I loved Borderlands but found Borderlands 2 too distasteful to persevere with after a while. I was playing Saints Row the Third recently and although I understand what the game is trying to do, I find the rampant murder of thousands (including passers-by as I'm trying and failing to get a handbrake turn just right) to be disturbing.

 

I'll play GTA 5 and I suspect I'll enjoy it, but I can see where the 3.5/5 (the horror!) review is coming from. Also, it's a healthy sign for game criticism if SOMEONE comes out and admits that they just didn't fall all the way in love with the game. I know that consensus happens, but groupthink is a killer.

 

One more thing (spoiler for Bioshock Infinite)

 

I actually think that Bioshock Infinite nailed this issue of turning blame on you, the player. The game got other things wrong and fell between two stools (storytelling and action) far too often, with Booker fighting a ghost being the absolute nadir of the game from a narrative standpoint. I thought the ending was very interesting though and did more than any other game I've played (or at least, that comes to mind) to point out that the way we enjoy games is just a little messed up.

[melmer]

This is not a criticism per say, just sounds like from the 2% of his review I actually read he seemed to have taken the game more at face value than some of the other reviewers.

Probably most gamers will take this game completely at face value, so in a way this is one of the more worthy critics out there

[youmeyou]

This is great:

 

https://soundcloud.com/leighalexander1/review-of-gta-v-this-is-why-we

[sclpls]

I liked the line in the Polygon review criticizing the GTA series for being, "relentlessly cynical about the American experience — the college freshman worldview". Also good satire depends on being remarkably focused, and Rockstar games are way too broad in terms of what they are trying to encompass for them to be effective as satire or parody. If the overall message of a work is "everything about society is kind of dumb huh?", well, that's just not a very interesting point of view.

 

I'm still looking forward to experiencing the game, but it doesn't surprise me that it doesn't sound like the narrative is going to have anything to say that I will find interesting.

[gregbrown]

Kinda frustrated by the reflexive tut-tutting by the indie game community at the positive reviews of GTA V: as if the game couldn't possibly bring anything interesting to the table, or be distinguished in its craftsmanship. In a way, it's even more frustrating than the backlash against not-perfect scores, if only because I expect better out of them.

There are some serious issues with the way Rockstar treats women and violence in their games, but that doesn't obviate the positive aspects—or justify ignoring the game when pointing to how AAA games never do anything innovative. I can understand saying that the game isn't for you, since if you don't like previous GTA games you probably won't like this one. But the reactions I've seen go far beyond that, to the point where Leigh Alexander's insipid ~parody~ is championed, when it commits the same "turning it to 11 isn't satire" mistake that many criticize the game itself for!

Anyways, between that and the predictable ugly reaction against reviewers who have the gall to criticize misogyny—or even worse, commit the sin of BEING FEMALE—I'm really disgusted today by the whole gaming scene.

[Dualhammers]

As an extricated piece of work I found Leigh's review, especially when read aloud, to be pretty funny, but I also agree with you. In the context that it is intended I don't think it is effective except in generating praise from people who already agree with her.

I want to at least experience GTA V, because I cannot believe it is completely devoid of anything worth appreciating.

I think I've changed my mind.

[Dualhammers]

I've also noticed several writers I follow on twitter saying similar things to the effect of "I know I am doing a good job when I write something that makes people angry." I am really concerned with this viewpoint, because I don't see it as being any different than someone in the comments section trying to say something hyperbolic simply to generate a response.

[juv3nal]

The one thing which made Red Dead the first rockstar game I finished was that you could just whistle for your horse and boom instant vehicle available which does a lot to make traversing those huge distances not so onerous.

 

I doubt GTA5 will offer something like that, but that probably won't stop me from getting it (though it will probably stop me from finishing it).

[Reyturner]

Holy shit, those GameSpot comments 

[youmeyou]

I thought Alexander's audio clip was actually pretty effective satire, poking fun not at the game itself but at how major reviewers reflexively use the language of the game's marketing in their writing. Her dictation instantly recalls this unnerving piece of marketing for the game that came out 2 months ago:

 

 

I would not at all place it on the other side of the scale with the gamespot commenters, even if you don't think it works as satire.

[Dewar]

Edit: Nevermind, I just listened to the actual sound byte, and I don't want to get involved.

[Argobot]

I also found Leigh Alexander's piece to be more a criticism of the kind of generic reviews fans of these big AAA games expect, not necessarily a criticism of the people who enjoy or find value in these games. But Greg's right in that there are a lot of people ready and willing to mock others for playing GTA (or Bioshock, or TLOU, or Saint's Row...), for no other reason than "it's a triple-A game and therefore it has no intrinsic value." That to me, is as closed-minded as the rabid fans who are unwilling to entertain any kind of criticism for [insert whatever the big game du jour is].

[Twig]

I found this amusing. "Follow leighalexander1, 50 Cent, Grizzly Bear and others on SoundCloud."

 

Sorry.

[Dualhammers]

I also found Leigh Alexander's piece to be more a criticism of the kind of generic reviews fans of these big AAA games expect, not necessarily a criticism of the people who enjoy or find value in these games. But Greg's right in that there are a lot of people ready and willing to mock others for playing GTA (or Bioshock, or TLOU, or Saint's Row...), for no other reason than "it's a triple-A game and therefore it has no intrinsic value." That to me, is as closed-minded as the rabid fans who are unwilling to entertain any kind of criticism for [insert whatever the big game du jour is].

This I completely agree with. It becomes especially apparent when both sides use the same profoundly ineffective tactics to get their point across. 

[thestalkinghead]

i like Leigh Alexander, but what is the point of reviewing a game (even a mock review) if one hasn't played the game, it's the same as defending a game with a bad (meaning really good 9/10) review if one hasn't played it.

 

anyway, i have been mostly avoiding GTA5 news until it has a PC release date and then i will play it myself before judging it

[sclpls]

Kinda frustrated by the reflexive tut-tutting by the indie game community at the positive reviews of GTA V: as if the game couldn't possibly bring anything interesting to the table, or be distinguished in its craftsmanship. In a way, it's even more frustrating than the backlash against not-perfect scores, if only because I expect better out of them.

There are some serious issues with the way Rockstar treats women and violence in their games, but that doesn't obviate the positive aspects—or justify ignoring the game when pointing to how AAA games never do anything innovative. I can understand saying that the game isn't for you, since if you don't like previous GTA games you probably won't like this one. But the reactions I've seen go far beyond that, to the point where Leigh Alexander's insipid ~parody~ is championed, when it commits the same "turning it to 11 isn't satire" mistake that many criticize the game itself for!

Anyways, between that and the predictable ugly reaction against reviewers who have the gall to criticize misogyny—or even worse, commit the sin of BEING FEMALE—I'm really disgusted today by the whole gaming scene.

 

Yeah, I agree with a lot of that, and I would say a lot of that attitude is not unique to GTA either. I remember when Bioshock Infinite came out one of the dudes from Capybara Games was complaining on twitter about how that game was everything that was wrong with video games, which I thought was a rather obnoxious hyperbolic statement to make.

 

That being said I want to stand up for Leigh's satirical review. GTA IV really did get some absurd over-the-top praise for a game that made a lot of remarkable technological achievements, but was otherwise in many ways an inferior game to the games that existed in the previous console generation. That critique is maybe a little less relevant when this time around you do see a lot of reviewers willing to criticize the game for its misogyny (while stuck in the ridiculous situation of still awarding it a 9.5 out of 10 or whatever because who wants to risk getting blacklisted when a GTA game will provide so many view page hits). Readers ought to know the game being played here, and I think Leigh's piece does a reasonable job of exposing the awkward situation games reviewing is in.

[Irishjohn]

I agree, as has been said already in this thread, I think she's poking fun at cookie-cutter reviews, not the game itself.

[RubixsQube]

There's a lot of things to think about with the release of this game.

 

First off, GTAV is repackaging a lot of the pretty abhorrent trends in modern gaming: shootin' and killin' and not respectin' women and explosions' and dicks. Leigh Alexander's piece touches on this, and as Argobot pointed out, it's a broad shot across the bow of all AAA titles. That being said, her piece is real reductive. I am sure that there's some worthwhile content in GTAV. You know what? It's pretty fun to drive cars fast and jump over things and blow stuff up in a video game. While the titles that really "represent" gaming to the general public (your Grands Theft Auto, your Calls of Duty, etc) are not great at showing off the potential of interactive entertainment, their existence has not stopped the expansion of games into new and wonderful territory. We still have Gone Home! Leigh Alexander's piece, while providing a bit of humor, doesn't seem to do anything but levy a snarkbomb at Rockstar. And that's been done. So...what? 

 

I am more astounded each time a big budget title drops, and all of these little numbers get ping-ponged around and commenter after commenter freaks out about Metacritic scores. This is COMPLETELY MINDBOGGLING. "Son, when I was your age, I was on the front line of the war against Escapist and their scandalous 3.5 star review of GTAV. I said some pretty cruel things on the internet son. Things I'm not proud of. I hope you can still love me." Why do game journalists give numbered reviews? What a silly thing to do. It's most likely because it drives clicks, right? What a weird way to do business. 

 

"I don't have time to read 3500 words about a game! I just want to know if it's good! With a number between one and ten!"

 

(heavy head slam into desk)

 

Congratulations, universe. 

 

I think it's pretty bizarre that video game reviews are sorted based on the website that the reviewer works for. Film reviews are tied to their authors. Savvy gamers will seek out authors who's opinions jibe with their own, but most review aggregators list the scores next to the website (or publication, ha!) that delivered the number. Ugh, reviews. Listen, I understand that video games cost a lot of money, and people want to know if they're worthwhile or not, but if we want video games to be given respect, human people playing video games, we're going to maybe have to make some sacrifices. Little gold stars are going to have to go.

[Irishjohn]

The metacritic effect is a terrible thing. It's not an issue for GTA V, but for games that are not so certain to do well, publishers will take developers to task over the metacritic score. At least, that was the case five years or so ago. I hope things have improved (and it depends what developer you work for) but I worry that they have not.

[RubixsQube]

I am 100% sure that Metacritic's power has only grown. And they haven't even released their weighting system! I'm pretty sure that there's some weird selection biases at play here. If I went and submitted a scientific paper where I just cherrypicked my targets and weighted some property by values that I never provided, I'd be rejected so fast.

 

Why have we let Metacritic have so much power? Their description of how they create their Metascores is one of the most mystifying things I've read on the internet. Hey did you know that a "score" between "75 and 89" represents "generally favorable reviews"? On any video game. (If it's a movie, though, it's 61 through 80, so watch out.) Reading this description is like that moment when you're watching a politician answer a "tough question" and they say fifty things without actually saying anything at all. Metacritic, you are correct to call Metascores "magic" because they are smoke and mirrors and that smoke is all up our butts.

[DoomMunky]

Someone on another site said this, and I couldn't agree more: 

 

I wish the reviews linked above would spend a lot more time talking about whether GTA5 avoids the gameplay mistakes of 4, and a lot less time talking about the story. 

I can live with a bad story or an unlikable main character. But I'll be damned if I spend money on another GTA that had the horrific mission designs of 4. "Go kill this guy. But don't kill him with your car at the start of the mission. Instead, follow him around pointlessly, sit through a needless cut scene, let him escape, chase him in your car again, and then kill him. Oh, and there are no checkpoints."

[Dewar]

The Giant Bomb review focuses a little more on those sorts of mechanics. Sounds like there are better in-mission checkpoints, but the mission content is about the same.