GTA IV Review Theory.

Okay so lately theres been a lot of posts on how GTA IV sucked and the review was false hype etc. First off i don't think it sucked at all, I love it but anyway. I'll admit that the biggest failure in GTA IV was the lifespan of it, it's just not as fun as San Andreas. The story, the gameplay, the graphics everything else was great!

So it's been out since April, of course the reviewers couldn't have seen this far into the future of the games lifespan. I'm sure almost everyone that played the story mode in GTA would agree that it was so good! So how were the reviewers supposed to anticipate that this would happen in the future. I really don't think we should critisize the reviewers because for the short time (the story, the game itself definetly derserved a high 9's possibly 10). Does anyone understand what I'm trying to say?

What do you think about this?

I understand what you are trying to say and I also loved the game but it did not deserve a 10. I think there should only be about 1 game that gets a 10 each generation and GTA4 wasnt it. It is still the reviewer's job to predict the replayability of a game. The reviewers failed to see that it isnt as replayable as San Andreas. I would have given it 9.0 - 9.5

I think the fact the most game reviewers were put up in a fancy 5 start hotel with all expenses paid adds to it. I mean c'mon, sat in a luxery room, a huge HDTV with this hyped game that probbaly looks amazing for the first time. I think this would definately sway someones review on the game.TheCraving

A small, vocal minority didn't like GTA IV. GTA user reviews are still overwhelmingly positive.

It wasn't the best game in the series, but it's still an outstanding sandbox game.