What were your opinions on Grand Theft Auto IV getting a 10?

I personally think it deserved it.

It doesn't deserve a 10.

That game is heavily flawed and I hope the fifth game corrects the fourth game's mistakes, such as the inaccurate, poor controls on the driving to some of the missions. They also need to take out the distracting stuff, like taking your cousin or that girl out on dates. A f***ing waste of time.

They need to take a lot of notes from THQ and what it's being done with Saints Row. Saints Row is a better sandbox open-world game than Grand Theft Auto. Also, they need to include co-op gameplay in GTA V. GTA IV only had competiive multiplayer and it was not fun at all. That needs to go.

So, overall...no, it doesn't deserve a 10. Somewhere between 7.0-8.0 out of 10.

Far from perfect, but still up there. I say a 9.0-9.5. Fun for awhile, but like all GTAs, the story became a convoluted mess without any structure where you're wondering how you even found some of the main characters.

8/10.

Ah that much debated score.

One thing GTA IV did very well was the realism and sense of a living breathing world. You really felt immersed into that world. GTA IV however for me just lacked the over the top fun moments found in San Andreas. The game just lacked the variety of the previous games, and while the games top notch phyiscs and ,more believable world were top notch and undoubtedly impressive, the game for me just didn't keep me hooked, and that's why I'd give it a 8.5/10. Great story and great MP but not anywhere near as good as GTA SA.

8/10.

TheFallenDemon

The city itself was pretty good, if a little brown and ugly (without mods), but the actual gameplay was a little lacking. Also the story was a joke and the characters were annoying as hell. It tried to be too serious for a GTA game and ended up shooting itself in the foot with a lack of variety/fun in missions. After a while the game just felt monotonous. 7/10 in my book.

Eh. 8.0. Not the biggest GTA fan, though, so take that into consideration.

I'd give it a solid 9/10. I found it to be too short. I should have waited until I got the complete edition with both DLCs, but I could never wait that long for a GTA title. I loved the vehicle handling, I found it was well suited for my driving style. Also, the lack of any real options to customize Niko bothered me.

It showed me that it's very much over-rated. I think it's an 8.5 game at best.

I personally think it deserved it.

ps3gameplayer

I agree with you, also if you see some of the games with a 10 score and considering GTA IV is 10 times better then most of them, i say its fair grade to give it.

But some people in this theard will probably not agree with you because some are under the delusion that GTA IV should be another San Andreas or because of some rather huge errors in the PC release its a bad game. But if we take the story, the whole idea that for once the hero didn´t end up being the new Godfather or ruling Miami

Its one of the best GTA games so far, Nico was a excellent "anti" hero, a good guy coming from Serbia where he killed people in a bad war.

Also the expansions was great it gave the game a new life and it was great to see some of the missions from the other side.

So 10/10 is a fair grade even without the expansions.

It doesn't deserve a 10.

That game is heavily flawed and I hope the fifth game corrects the fourth game's mistakes, such as the inaccurate, poor controls on the driving to some of the missions. They also need to take out the distracting stuff, like taking your cousin or that girl out on dates. A f***ing waste of time.

They need to take a lot of notes from THQ and what it's being done with Saints Row. Saints Row is a better sandbox open-world game than Grand Theft Auto. Also, they need to include co-op gameplay in GTA V. GTA IV only had competiive multiplayer and it was not fun at all. That needs to go.

So, overall...no, it doesn't deserve a 10. Somewhere between 7.0-8.0 out of 10.

Metamania

Eh? some where i hope your joking with your whole Rockstar should learn from THQ or even take notes from Saints Row 1-3.

Rockstar wrote the book on how Openworld should be and if you look at THQ they basicly stole with their arms and legs from the GTA series. Also Saints row and GTA is no longer the same game genre where GTA has gone down the more serious road and have begun to take themself serious and combine a great story with great open world gameplay, THQ have taken Saints Row down the ludicrus road where the story is nothing but a backdrop and the game itself doesnt take itself just the smallest bit serious.

So what excatly do you think Rockstar should take? because i think Rockstar are doing a excellent job with GTA and GTA IV deserves a 10/10.

Also if you look at the sales figures its clear that Rockstar are the kings

Saints row 3 - 4mill sales

GTA IV - 15+mill sales

[QUOTE="Metamania"]

It doesn't deserve a 10.

That game is heavily flawed and I hope the fifth game corrects the fourth game's mistakes, such as the inaccurate, poor controls on the driving to some of the missions. They also need to take out the distracting stuff, like taking your cousin or that girl out on dates. A f***ing waste of time.

They need to take a lot of notes from THQ and what it's being done with Saints Row. Saints Row is a better sandbox open-world game than Grand Theft Auto. Also, they need to include co-op gameplay in GTA V. GTA IV only had competiive multiplayer and it was not fun at all. That needs to go.

So, overall...no, it doesn't deserve a 10. Somewhere between 7.0-8.0 out of 10.

Jacanuk

I will still always think saints row is better then gta iv by a landslide it was just so much more funalmasdeathchild

it deserved a 10 AT THE TIME OF LAUNCH you silly stupids. Just like all the n64 games that have 10's, think for 1 fuucking second.

WebHead-

I didn't like it at first because it was really nothing like the older games.

But really, I think it is a fantastic game. I think it might just deserve that score actually.

[QUOTE="Jacanuk"][QUOTE="Metamania"]

It doesn't deserve a 10.

That game is heavily flawed and I hope the fifth game corrects the fourth game's mistakes, such as the inaccurate, poor controls on the driving to some of the missions. They also need to take out the distracting stuff, like taking your cousin or that girl out on dates. A f***ing waste of time.

They need to take a lot of notes from THQ and what it's being done with Saints Row. Saints Row is a better sandbox open-world game than Grand Theft Auto. Also, they need to include co-op gameplay in GTA V. GTA IV only had competiive multiplayer and it was not fun at all. That needs to go.

So, overall...no, it doesn't deserve a 10. Somewhere between 7.0-8.0 out of 10.

almasdeathchild

It wasn't just more fun than GTA was. Saints Row cleaned up a lot of problems that I felt GTA had. The driving was a lot of fun, easier to manuever than the cars and bikes in GTA, the missions were a blast, the story was very comical and not to be taken seriously. I also loved the fact that there was two-player co-op. You can go anywhere and do anything you want without your partner having to be there with you at all times. GTA doesn't do that at all. It's some of these features and improvements I hope to see them make in GTA V.

For me it was a 9/10 experience, not because the game wasn't great but because it was stripped from a lot of earlier features. Only thing that was better imo was the plot and the graphics, but the game itself wasn't nearly as revolutionary as the previous titles which is only natural, but neither did they put that much of an effort into doing so either... of course still a great game and I'm excited to see what they do next!

it didn't deserve a 10, this is the instinct i stop caring for reviews, gta4 was a 8 at best, sure it had a big world but it wasn't fun

Yeah, it was head and shoulders better then any game that had been released at that point in the console generation. The Euphoria Engine was something special and made the game feel very fluid and natural. The setting was familar and yet was busy with life and every nook and crany had something personal about it. I loved the missing structure and characters. The fit so well within the genre that GTA has built from the ground up. It had some minor flaws but those are easily overlooked and I could see why Gamespot would give out their highest recoomendation. It also did some interesting things with multiplayer and the whole "friends" aspect was really cool in my opinion.

From what I've played the game is more of a 6.5.

It clearly deserved a 10.

That game is nothing but quality, it's abundantly clear the amount of work that R* put into the game and managed to pull off everything from the driving to the combat without making it feel clunky or inferior to the previous entries in the series. You've got to remember too that this was the first GTA title on the new gen consoles, usually these don't do so well because the devs are still new to programming for the hardware.

I really think the only people who don't think it deserved a 10 are the San Andreas enthusiasts who miss the jets, jet packs, parachutes, dual weilding, and other over the top and unecessary things which R* wasn't even going for in the new game.

Well, apart from bieng really angreh, I questioned whether or not the critics played the 4th. Then I questioned whether or not the critics played VC and SA. Then I questioned whether or not the critics played ANY grand theft auto. Giving that game a 10/10 is insane

I agree 100%. Why should it matter that it isn't as free and filled with mini-games as San Andreas? It's more well-crafted and fun than any previous GTA title. It's by far one of the best games this gen (if not ever).

Giving a game a 10 implies that it's perfect, and there's no such thing as a perfect game...I personally found the pacing to be really bad; spending so much time just driving your accomplices around and not really doing anything else was monotonous. I only stuck with it because my friend told me it was worth going through, and I found it to be quite the opposite. The controls and physics just weren't enjoyable. Everything felt clunky, and unnatural. And the lack of color made Liberty City feel lifeless.

Giving a game a 10 implies that it's perfect, and there's no such thing as a perfect game...I personally found the pacing to be really bad; spending so much time just driving your accomplices around and not really doing anything else was monotonous. I only stuck with it because my friend told me it was worth going through, and I found it to be quite the opposite. The controls and physics just weren't enjoyable. Everything felt clunky, and unnatural. And the lack of color made Liberty City feel lifeless.

MadVybz

That's not the case anymore for quite a few big gaming sites.

I agree 100%. Why should it matter that it isn't as free and filled with mini-games as San Andreas? It's more well-crafted and fun than any previous GTA title. It's by far one of the best games this gen (if not ever).

WTA2k5

[QUOTE="MadVybz"]Giving a game a 10 implies that it's perfect, and there's no such thing as a perfect game...I personally found the pacing to be really bad; spending so much time just driving your accomplices around and not really doing anything else was monotonous. I only stuck with it because my friend told me it was worth going through, and I found it to be quite the opposite. The controls and physics just weren't enjoyable. Everything felt clunky, and unnatural. And the lack of color made Liberty City feel lifeless.WTA2k5

Didn't come close to a 10 IMO... Lucky to get a 7 from me. Was far too repetitive & boring for me. I enjoyed Saints Row 3 WAY more...

8/10.

I played it for one evening and put it back on the shelf. I'm not interested in driving around some cruddy city and talking to idiots. Not terribly interested in the much vaunted "But you can screw a hooker and then kill her!" thing either. From what little I saw of the storytelling style...I picked up some girl from the train station, said about one sentence to her, and she's giving me her phone number? Oh year, that's obviously a well-crafted narrative lol.

I played it for one evening and put it back on the shelf. I'm not interested in driving around some cruddy city and talking to idiots. Not terribly interested in the much vaunted "But you can screw a hooker and then kill her!" thing either. From what little I saw of the storytelling style...I picked up some girl from the train station, said about one sentence to her, and she's giving me her phone number? Oh year, that's obviously a well-crafted narrative lol.

Jackc8

If GTA IV deserved a 10, then San Andreas should be given an 11.

As good as GTA IV was, San andreas was much better, So giving IV a higher score is kind of stupid.

[QUOTE="WTA2k5"][QUOTE="MadVybz"]Giving a game a 10 implies that it's perfect, and there's no such thing as a perfect game...I personally found the pacing to be really bad; spending so much time just driving your accomplices around and not really doing anything else was monotonous. I only stuck with it because my friend told me it was worth going through, and I found it to be quite the opposite. The controls and physics just weren't enjoyable. Everything felt clunky, and unnatural. And the lack of color made Liberty City feel lifeless.c_rake

I'm well aware of that, but I personally don't like a scoring system at all because of its nature; it's incredibly arbitrary. The idea of attaching a number to a feeling - especially when it comes to videogames - is just odd to me. I never feel comfortable rating games, but in the end it's just the most reliable way to portray a game's merit with a glance.

Besides, GTA IV still could have been improved in a large number of areas so it shouldn't have gotten a 10 regardless. :P

The gameplay, the most important factor about a game imo, wasn't a 10 in my book. The production values and effort put into the title are commendable but at the end of the day all of that went into making a game that just wasn't enjoyable to play.Senor_Kami

[QUOTE="WTA2k5"][QUOTE="MadVybz"]Giving a game a 10 implies that it's perfect, and there's no such thing as a perfect game...I personally found the pacing to be really bad; spending so much time just driving your accomplices around and not really doing anything else was monotonous. I only stuck with it because my friend told me it was worth going through, and I found it to be quite the opposite. The controls and physics just weren't enjoyable. Everything felt clunky, and unnatural. And the lack of color made Liberty City feel lifeless.c_rake

[QUOTE="c_rake"][QUOTE="WTA2k5"]That's not the case anymore for quite a few big gaming sites.MadVybz

I'm well aware of that, but I personally don't like a scoring system at all because of its nature; it's incredibly arbitrary. The idea of attaching a number to a feeling - especially when it comes to videogames - is just odd to me. I never feel comfortable rating games, but in the end it's just the most reliable way to portray a game's merit with a glance.

Besides, GTA IV still could have been improved in a large number of areas so it shouldn't have gotten a 10 regardless. :P

[QUOTE="MadVybz"]

[QUOTE="c_rake"]Indeed. A ten simply designates a game that can't be improved in any meaningful way. If it did mean perfect, having that score at all would be pointless.Jacanuk

I'm well aware of that, but I personally don't like a scoring system at all because of its nature; it's incredibly arbitrary. The idea of attaching a number to a feeling - especially when it comes to videogames - is just odd to me. I never feel comfortable rating games, but in the end it's just the most reliable way to portray a game's merit with a glance.

Besides, GTA IV still could have been improved in a large number of areas so it shouldn't have gotten a 10 regardless. :P

I'm pretty sure it goes without saying that it's my opinion.

It's not the perfect game, but then again neither was MGS4. I would give GTA IV a 9.5.

The driving completely ruins the game, i give it an 8 just for that.