Carolyn's GTA V review was right

There's a difference between flawed characters and worlds, and flawed writing. A flawed character may be objectionable, but good writing uses that potential offensiveness to make a strong point (see: anything from Taxi Driver, to Breaking Bad, to The Last of Us). Grand Theft Auto V has objectionable content and fails to use it in a way that makes a compelling statement. Surely if someone is offended by distasteful stuff that exists for no purpose, you can understand why (even if you don't take issue with it).

So basically, you have no logical argument to make so you warp the words of others. KTHX

I pulled this line from YOUR post.....The question everyone wants to know is this: Will I enjoy this game?

Which is basically what I said. You want someone to tell you how they FEEL about a game as an indicator to you for whether you should purchase it.

That line is one of many. You're taking a single line out of context as an attempt to disprove a multi-line argument. You have nothing logical to say against the argument. You're just nitpicking the wording of a single line.

Quite ridiculous, really. Please respond to my actual argument though, because that would be more interesting than what you currently have to say.

LOL that is your entire argument. You said in a couple posts you want to know how the reviewer "feels". You said reviews changed.....it's in your posting history. I suggest you read your posts over than maybe you just might know what argument you're making here dude.

But trying to be dishonest about what you said isn't very ethical. I think that means the reviewer has to deduct points. Sorry pal.

Yes it is in my history. I stand by what I said, and I suggest you actually read what I said. Because you clearly did not read what I had to say.

By the logic I am seeing from most people here, the next time I play a game with a really ripped dude in it I am going to say how much it sucks because the guy isn't average or overweight. Like come on?

Oh I read it. It was a crock of bull. A professional review should highlight the merits and problems of a game....and not get on a soap box. I think a few individuals in here really don't understand the GTA series though that is for sure. But don't feel bad....apparently some reviewers don't either.

If it bothers you, you should express your opinion.

And after reading IGN's "professional" reviews, you'll rethink what it means to be a professional review.

"The Citizen Kane of gaming!" You can keep your "professional" reviews.

Again, pointing out that a game that incessantly attempts to make political statements but utterly fails to make them meaningful or entertaining is pointing out a flaw with the game. Thus, Carolyn's review does analyze what Grand Theft Auto V offers as a gaming experience, and then gives her opinion on how she felt about it. That is literally the entire point of a review.

Actually she made a glaring mistake in her review. She used the torture scene as an example of inconsistency. She thinks since Trevor said torture doesnt work that it was inconsistent for Trevor to torture anyway. Trevor is an evil bastard so of course he would enjoy torturing someone just for the hell of it.

Then she complains about the torture working when it doesnt. They torture BEFORE asking the questions. Someone who cant follow such a simple scene shouldnt be reviewing games.

Why does the game need to send any political message?

A professional reviewers duty is to put aside all hangups and biases and review not on the subject matter itself but how well the subject matter is executed.

agreed.

also, several is not an integer.

How about a specific example of a political statement, why it should be meaningful and why it's not entertaining?

I have to disagree, Carolyn's review was bad, and I think that the game does deserve a 10/10 score, still at least Carolyn's review is better than this awful review. She went on about the games portrayal or women too much and I felt that the game had a great representation of the problems with the world, even small things, such as modern video games.

GTA IV on the other hand, did not deserve it's 10/10 score at it was far to stripped down in content, in so many ways, it felt like a demo. Yeah sure, it had a great story, but that does not make up for the lack of so many features.

The game has a big torture sequence. I don't think I have to explain why touching on the issue of the government torturing suspected terrorists to gain information about other suspected terrorists is inherently a political statement. I also don't think I have to explain why that should be explored in a meaningful way - torture isn't exactly lighthearted fun. Anyway, after the whole sequence is said and done, the only point the game makes is essentially: "Ha ha! Torture can be fun for the torturer!" What a knee-slapper. I'm not saying GTA needs to be serious and high-minded, but that's total bullshit.

It was too boring to bother finishing I'd give it a "yawn out of 10"

Why does it have to be meaningful? Why would anyone play GTA for some sort of meaningful message? It's not light hearted fun it's deeply sickening fun for certain types of people. I found it funny how the victim said he was ready to talk since he was kidnapped but Trevor pulls a tooth before asking for any info.

How do you think that scene should have been handled?

If touching on a subject like that for an extended period of time yields no meaningful statement, then it's just crass and exploitative. And not even in the spirit of "sickening fun." God of War, for example, is sickening fun because it's sheer fantasy that makes no attempt to say anything about any hot-button issue. Grand Theft Auto V just exploits hot topics to stir up controversy without saying anything about them. That's not fun in any sense.

Here's some dialogue from the game

“The media and the government would have us believe that torture is some necessary thing. We need it to get information, to assert ourselves,” Trevor says. “Did we get any information out of you?”

“I would have told you everything!” the man replies.

“Exactly!” says Trevor. “Torture’s for the torturer. Or the guy giving the order to the torturer. You torture for the good times! We should all admit that. It’s useless as a means of getting information.”

If that's not a message against torture then I dont know what is.

Then again, it's a satire. It's a comedy/action game. If you want a message look elsewhere.

Still waiting on how you think the torture scene should have been handled.

First off, satire is intended to have a message. The point of satire is to use humor to deliver a message.

Secondly, while I agree that that dialogue does support a stance on torture, I'd say it does so extremely superficially. Trevor just outright states what the audience should have derived from that sequence, regardless of what it actually presents. If I recall correctly, that whole exchange is just sort of tacked on at the end of that (really long) mission as Trevor and the tortured guy are driving back to the airport. Shoehorning a brief, halfhearted message into a sequence right as it's about to end isn't exactly saying something substantive

Given the game's writing, how i would've handled the torture sequence is to just scrap that shit. (Though also given the game's writing, I would've scrapped half the campaign). Clearly the game has nothing remotely thoughtful to say about it, and it's not like that sequence is entertaining, so what's the point of even having it? They should've saved all the resources they put towards that crap sequence and made another cool heist or something.

1. Okay.
2.
*Parent goes into store, looks at games*
*Reads back of box*
"Oh hey, this game says that it devalues women and portrays racism in a discriminating way! I better not get this game for my kid"

No. Blurbs on the back of the box often don't tell you enough information. I could say the same back to you about every review in general. This is a silly suggestion to make.

3. Just because you've never met them doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Do you want me to link to a parents blog or something? Another silly suggestion.

Bottom line: Reviews are rarely factual. Reviewers cannot part way with their biases. For example, how "scary" a survival/horror is useful to know, but impossible to convey without opinion. Same for almost every other aspect of "gameplay". This is the same in most industries: music, movies, theatre. Reviewers rarely part ways with their opinions. Videogames is not an exception. A review is defined by the reviewer, the only guideline is to give an overlook and analysis on the game. This includes facts and opinions, whether you like it or not.

Good day to you sir.

I meant to say parody.

The dialogue at the end is more of a recap since it's the message that's conveyed throughout the entire sequence.

Being forced to play a torturer could have been an attempt to make people oppose the use of torture.

How could Rockstar have been more thoughtful?

She is by far the worst reviewer on this site. That's all I have to say.

I remember reading that review, and the review on Giant Bomb by Gertsmann.

One of them sounded like the person had actually played the game. The other sounded like the person had just watched the cutscenes and wrote about whatever they **** they wanted to write about.

Guess which one?

I remember looking at the GOTY page on this site, reading a quote from one of the staff, and realizing that no fighting, racing, or strategy game has much chance of winning that award.

That said, the fact so few games have demos isn't justification enough for giving lots of weight to "professional" reviews anyway.

I don't care that she gave it a 9/10. I just don't want her to use her position as a game reviewer to push her stupid feminist agenda. And it's not that she's a feminist either. I would consider myself to be pro women's rights, I just don't like people forcing their views on me.

Reviews should never include one's own personal or political views and feelings. Since when have games ever been politically correct? Why should they be?

Score-wise she was correct--it's not a 10 game by any standards.

Charlie's review was neither wrong, nor right.

Forza 5, Ass Creed Black Flag and Bioshock Infinite scored a 9 at Gamespot so GTA V deserves a 10.

@Suppaman100: you mean he.

Yeah, it's definitely not a 10/10, but it's still a great game.

does she identify as a man?

I completely agree with you, this is why i don't take Gamespot reviews serious. They're pretty horrible when it comes to reviews, Caroline isn't the first one to do this type of thing. Gamespot in general are very inconsistent. They don't have guidelines or anything it's just people literally doing whatever they feel like or want in a review and a lot of people here think that's how they are in general, but I was always fooled to believe that a Review would be like an overview or the quality and features of the product or thing without going into specific details that give away the product and give an evaluation of it after wards, based on the product.

That's probably one of the sillier things I've read today. It's just sexism - nothing abhorrently wrong about it. The game is clearly sexist when it comes to both women AND men. Satire is critiquing and pointing out that it IS disagreeable and abhorrently wrong - typically by taking things to the extreme. GTA's world has one always with this exact satirical nature. The point of satire clearly goes above your head if you don't get this. It's obvious Carolyn was just mad about them poking fun at feminists (because she clearly has always appeared to be one).

whatever i loved it and felt it was worth the hype.

No it doesn't, because it's not worthy. You can't compare other games of other genres by score like that, it's just stupid.

Other games in GTA's genre look half assed when compared to GTA.

Why isnt it worthy?

Because very few games, if any, are worth a score that high. It's not perfect or even prime. The game is repetitive, has many online flaws, shallow characters and poor dialog.

Outside of the three-protagonist system, the game does nothing innovative or new. Having a huge budget and amazing graphics doesn't excuse such flaws.

The game is still great in many areas, and fun to play, but everything about the game and that formula is growing very stale.

So you too have no grasp of what "satire is"? Interesting. Glad I'm not you.

Anyways, it was clearly the best game of 2013 and it sold a ton of copies so who the **** cares what some reviewer has to say. Especially when the reviewer clearly hasn't played the game.

@LJS9502_basic: It depends on how much emphasis is put on the political stuff. If GTAV put a large emphasis on trying to send a message, that aspect should be critiqued.

I mean she did give it a 9 out of 10. I preferred she reviewed the game anyway without the hype and ass kissing. Either way the game was awesome and since I enjoyed the humor and the way they disrespect women I would still give it a 9 out of 10. lol

I dont care what anyone says its a 10/10 game to me. Incredible game one of the best games on ps3/360

Repetitive and poor dialog? Compared to what?

The characters are fine.

Sorry, but we're at the point where it's really tough to be innovative. What kind of innovations were you expecting?

I think everyone has moved on from GTAV brah.

I haven't taken the disc back out of its box since like October 2nd lawl.

She is entitled to her opinion, it is her experience playing the game. However, that begs the question of what kind of person Carolyn Petit is. And I do not wish to degenerate this into a character assassination thread.

I have one question, and one question alone. How effective did Carolyn feel the satire was in GTA 5?

Poor dialog compared to just about anything. "yeah homie" and "fo sho dog" repeated 5,000 times a day is just annoying at best. After playing GTA after GTA, and all the money R* makes from them, it's not asking much to expect a change in the old formula. AC IV did it exceptionally with a deeper off land experience.

GTA needs a deeper RPG building system for starters, like improving on what SA did. The heist planning turned out extremely shallow compared to the hype surrounding the feature. It should have been much deeper than it was. They promised a deep and thriving underwater exploration experience but it was shallow as all hell to where we only found small amounts of treasure and a few collectibles. You really couldn't do much with the properties or homes you could acquire, and it should have been more like the sims in that regard. And then there were less missions overall than previous games in the series. That's a huge step backwards. There should have been about a hundred more missions available with much more variety than the standard "kill this person and lose the cops" and "pick up a package across town and deliver it to so and so, then the deal goes bad and you have a shoot out".

Why couldn't Franklin manage a gang and take over territories like Carl in SA? Why couldn't Trevor accomplish more out of his flying business? Michael was the only character in the game that was half way realized in a semi-decent fashion.

Imo R* just spent too much time making a large map look really good, and then being lazy by filling it with sub-standard characters, (especially in comparison to ones like Niko and the McReary bros), speckled the map with trite things to do like parachuting etc.

No it wasn't

Nice examples there, were they supposed to say simply "yes" instead? Oh and nice exaggeration, 5,000 times lol. Give me examples of what you consider good dialogue.

100 more missions? It's already much longer than most sp only games and ridiculously longer than most sp/mp games.

I could come up with plenty of criticisms for every game in existence. No game is perfect. 10 doesnt mean perfect but that it's head and shoulders above all the others in it's genre. GTA V destroys it's competitors. Comparing GTA V to the 2nd best of it's genre is like comparing an NFL team to a high school team.

I found Trevor to be a much more interesting character than Niko. Niko was boring and rarely said anything funny.

Own it on PS3. Have to say, wasn't impressed. The formula is just stale now. I play for like 2 days and haven't played it since.