Carolyn's GTA V review was right

You think he's the narrow minded one when you flat out say that the reviewer shouldn't review the game because she's expressing opinions, "an agenda," that you don't want to hear? Don't read the review. Go somewhere else for a review. There's no reason why her review isn't valid.

I can't believe this thread has gone on for so long because of the argument that reviews should be objective, and games shouldn't be critiqued under different lens. No review can be objective. Just google the "review" entry of wikipedia. Every single type of review (Book, music, film) they all have an element of personal preference.

1.- The score for the game changes from person to person

2.- Tell me of a GTA game that doesn't treat women like crap and if this one appals you while you enjoyed previous GTAs then you are a hypocrite

3.- 2 criminals pushing 50 years old in the middle of a middle-age crisis and a rookie gangbanger trying to become a bigger criminal can't be consistent, GTA storylines are never meant to be "serious"

4.- It makes fun of everything political, it's only message is that politics are stupid regardless of wich side you are on, the fact the reviewer or yourself got upset about it only proves it's point and why it makes fun of it in general

The point of the satire is for laughs. Plenty of people find it amusing. What should they have done with the radio for example? Have a serious portrayal of radio stations and commercials?

Why cant the game be both a crime drama and a comedy? Plenty of films and tv shows are.

No, the point of satire is to point out flaws in hopes of shaming the flawed into changing; it can do that through humor, but it doesn't need to be funny. GTA V doesn't do that. It's a Parody above all things, not a satire.

Why can't it be a comedy and serious crime drama? Because Rockstar is going in a direction where they want to tell serious 'cinematic' stories during cutscenes, but as soon as the cutscene is over, the character starts with 'I'M GONNA PISS IN YOUR MOUTH, ARRRRGGHHHH!' so yeah it kind of ruins the experience of the drama. I'm not saying they should throw out all the funny things, or stop what they're doing, but the classic parody GTA is clashing against what they're trying to set out and do post-GTAIV.

I tended to skip around channels when they went to a commercial break, so I guess GTA V made a realistic portrayal in that regard.

Don't agree, GTA V is clearly a satire in every way.

Here's an interesting read, I agree completely with the following article.

http://higherlevelgamer.org/2013/10/08/nuances-of-satire-falling-into-gta-vs-biopolitical-trap/

sigh, feminists in my vidya now.... smh

gta 5 is so overrated, it isn't even funny.

If this isn't satire then nothing is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOlhy6Euy0I

Satire is all about using humor btw.

The cutscenes aren't usually all that serious either. Sounds like you simply don't like dramadies.

What exactly is Rockstar setting out to do post GTA 4?

I would say no since every other game in it's genre looks half assed in comparison.

You should watch this: GTA V is not satire. Like you pointed out, and like the video pointed out there can be satirical elements in bits of the game. But overall GTA V doesn't really have a point. **** everything, California is shit; that's all it says, but it doesn't offer anything besides that. That isn't satire.

I don't mind "dramadies" I love Seven Psychopaths, In Bruges, and Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.

What I mean by post-GTAIV is that they seem to have a shifted with GTA IV in a more realistic serious tone; they took out all the crazy stuff from SA in IV, of course GTAV brings alot of that back, but I felt the crime story/relationships (at least for Michael and Trevor because that's all who matter in the plot) was still a very serious one which clashes with ill-paced/misplaced bombastic comedy.

Interesting article, but I'm not sure what his thesis is as he flips on the issue throughout. His introduction is that misogyny has no point in the game and thus doesn't contribute to the satirical nature of the game, "The misogyny in GTA 5 is lazy, i.e., not developed as a clear target of derision, and unnecessary, i.e., not required to satirize the American dream;" therefore, because misoygny has no point in the satire it's not satire, a point he contradicts in the conclusion.

The rest of his article is about violence and how violent society of Los Santos is a vortex that sucks everyone in, including the 3 main characters. While I can see the point he tries to make he also contradicts the point by saying, "The misogyny and violence are morally reprehensible and may not be necessary to perform the function." His whole article is about violence being a satire, not misogyny, but then says violence doesn't perform a function in the conclusion.

Not all of the game is satire but much of it is. Enough to be called a satire. Most people consider GTA V to be a satire.

The guy in the video loses all credibility when he states that Saints Row 4 is a better game simply due to it's premise.

GTA 4 was more about adding good realism. The more realistic graphics, ai and physics for example. Gameplay wise it's no more realistic than it's predecessors. What crazy stuff did they take out? Car modding, parachuting and buying property are realistic. In GTA 4 if you crash at high speed you go flying through the windshield but you only lose a little bit of health. In Vice City if you fell off the motorcycle you would lose most of your health.

The LA gang theme of SA is a very serious subject. It's a much more delicate subject than an immigrant out for revenge or 2 dudes going through a mid life crisis.

it's pretty apparent the game doesn't go as far as dull gameplay and misogyny

I feel like gamers just discovered the word SATIRE and are throwing it around just to defend their favorite game.

The game doesnt really need to be defended though. Just going for laughs is enough for me. If a potential reviewer doesn't agree with a games type of comedy then they shouldn't review the game. It's like having someone who hates gore and would lower score over gore review a gory film.

Gotcha. Only certain people should review certain things. Anything else you want in your fascist world? Perhaps putting all the handicapped in jail?

Hey, your blanket statement wiped out all of his good points and well thought out discussion in one foul swoop. Way to go internet. "He liked this game so he has no credibility."

Holy crap on a stick. Do you even read what you type? And yeah Saints Row 4 is ten times more fun than the slog that is GTAV. I'd rather fly over the city then drive another five miles while trevor curses at me about god knows what only to reach a lousy stupid mission that doesn't support the lousy game mechanics...*drops mic*

I agree that GTA V isn't a 10/10 but the review was terrible. In fact all of Carolyn Petit reviews are absolutely horrendous. Shouldn't be paid to review video games because it is some of the worst journalism I have ever read. The part about women is just ridiculous. The game isn't that sexist and even if it is why would you give a ****? Its a fucking video game. Even if someone in real life was giving you shit for being a woman why would you care about their opinion? That is such a shitty life when you care about what people say or symbols and gestures that "represent discrimination". Your wasting your life if shit like that pisses you off.

Wow that's quite a stretch!

A vegetarian reviewing a steak restaurant and a rap hater reviewing a rap album makes so much sense.

His feelings about Saints Row seems to prove he just wants to hate on GTA. He didn't bring up any gameplay elements to back his opinion on Saints Row. Some people just like to hate on popular things.

He uses the Spaceballs scene about merchandising as an example of satire. GTA V has similar satire throughout the entire game. He uses movies for all these examples of parody and sarcasm but never uses the actual game in question as an example. You would think at some point he would use a specific scene in GTA V to support his stance.

Not many people agree with you on Saints Row. Compare the critic and user metacritic scores.

I find Trevor to be amusing. So Trevor was specifically cursing at you, the player of the game? What mission doesn't support the mechanics?

Did you miss the consensus?

Here it is: " Satire is at its best when it presents us with an inversion of what we would consider normal behaviour coupled with an internally consistent deployment of biopolitics, and there, GTA 5 succeeds brilliantly."

Again that's a component of satire, irony, but not satire in itself. If irony has no function it's not satire, so when he says, misogyny has no function and and the further separates it from the satirical portion of the game "The game they made is a satire and misogynistic," it doesn't really make the authors opinion clear on what he thinks. This isn't just to single out misogyny though, most of their caricatures have no function other than to poke fun.

Anyway let's assume that GTAV was a satire, and they were satirizing a patriarchal society where women are just seen as dumb feminists, considering everyone's reaction to Carolyn's review I'm pretty sure nothing of value was learned. I think it got to the point on this site where their parody and irony wasn't actually parody or irony.

I don't really mind that it's not a satire, it's fine if it's just stupid fun with no point, but the people trying to defend a game and tarnish a woman because she thinks it's misogynistic and they think it's entirely satire (I think so components of the game are satire), probably don't understand the point of satire, and if they did and still think it's satire, then they are probably the subject of the satire based on their behaviors and reactions.

Did you even bother to read any articles before the game released? Because the devs/pubs clearly stated it was a satire. Now you'd think a gamer would have read something pre release.....at least one that spends time on gaming sites....but apparently not. Also apparently it's not of interest to GS to have their reviewers familiar with work before they review. Which is a bad on them....

I know it's considered to be a satire. I know R* think it's a satire. I'm saying I don't agree with everything in it being a satire -- I don't think any of the caricatures or representations should be taken seriously but a lot of them aren't satire -- and if they still want to call everything in it a satire, then I'd dispute it's a failed satire. I'm assuming that Carolyn felt the same way on certain things; I'm sure she understands that it's a supposed satire.

Considering most people found it to be satire and that had a point, which I'm assuming the point (in the case of the feminist controversy) would be women should be held equal, have valid opinions and thoughts, etc., but based on the reaction to this website's review, no point was derived from any of the satire in the game by the people who were lambasting Carolyn, other than to ask for resignation from her job, disregard her opinion, and have someone with a valid opinion write the review -- reactions that would go against the satirical message of the game.

Soo.... that brings me back to my original quote by DFW, if your satire is just pointing out the injustices without trying to give a solution or at least hinting at a solution, what's the point? All the injustices have been pointed out time and time again. It apparently doesn't help to point them out again and again, especially when you don't have a clear message in your satire; for example, the article linked to me earlier, says that the violence in Los Santos is a way of life, something that cannot be escaped. It weakly argues that Franklin escapes it to a certain degree, but none of the characters actually fight or resist violence, the game starts in violence and ends in violence. Violence was always the problem and the solution. There was no Yossarian moment. There was no Candide moment. There was no ultimate push/resistance to the life in Los Santos, only passive agreement up until the end.

Her review was bad. Her score was still too high as well.

Game was more like a 6-7/10.

You can't speak for someone else. And frankly that review does NOT demonstrate knowledge of satire. It was a terrible review.

it got a 9, you have to be a nutjob to cry over that.

and so what if it was a stupid review with stupid points?

at least it was not as uncomfortable to read as the gta online review was to watch.

"she was a girl that came to the city with dreams, .. she hooked up with a kindly pig headed fellow..."

good god that thing made me laugh with embarrassment.

and is the level of gta "comedy" so low that a billboard that says "smell like a bitch" is supposed to be funny terrible comedy in a way that is almost unforgivable?

yes it is but what the hell are you going to do, you suffer through that stupid shyt for the game and if you don't want to deal with it don't buy it.

it is that simple.

Score was good but her criticism was pure BS.

I'm assuming you're thinking I'm speaking for Carolyn? Like with my previous sentence, I had a qualifier, "assuming." I'm not speaking for anyone else but myself, and in order to get a full picture I emailed Carolyn explaining the context and asking for her input, so hopefully I won't have to assume her opinion in a little while although her review does state, "Yes, these are exaggerations of misogynistic undercurrents in our own society, but not satirical ones. With nothing in the narrative to underscore how insane and wrong this is, all the game does is reinforce and celebrate sexism."

I was dissapointed with the game personally. It's about an 8 for me. So I guess I disagree with her review.

Okay, so you're saying GTA V is "bad" satire and you don't like the fact that people cirtized the reviewer because she made some "dumb" statements. (side note: I don't agree with the way "she" was critized though)

And let's be srs here, yes women were portrayed as idiotic feminists but the men were portrayed even worse, in GTA V most men were useless, violent, idiotic criminals. So claiming that the game was pure "misogynistic" is just stupid. Knowning she's a transgender(?), she probably only focused on that part and ignored that men were also portrayed equally "bad" or even worse. GTA V is just as misogynistic as it is misandristic.

GTA V is a satire, even though it "failed" to be a good satire for some.

There is a lot of stupid in this thread.

Not interested in "feminist" review of GTA.

Keep your garbage political agenda out of gaming, every game doesn't have to be PETA approved or be "politically correct."

Every single mission involving a plane, landing a plane, or doing anything with a helicopter or plane. Specifically when trevor lands his plane into the cargo hold of that other ship. I wanted to break the game I swear to God. (I'll cut to the chase and just write in what you're gonna say...its not the games fault you suck blah blah blah I'm a perfect supreme gamer who never has any problems with any game blah blah blah)

The auto aim takes all skill out of the cover shooting. (Turning it off only proves how really crappy the shooting is and why auto aim is default.) And that tiny little dot they call a shooting reticule is a joke. So shoot outs are a joke or impossible depending on whether or not you turn off auto aim.

I beat GTAV and didn't laugh out loud once. Satire is funny. GTAV is never funny. Even the radio stations seemed like the same old boring thing and I listened to talk radio the whole time I played.

He can't use a specific scene in GTAV because there are none. What scenes in that game are satire? Is it the torture scene? Michael ragging on his son for playing Call of Duty online with a dirty mouth? That would have been funny...five years ago..

Trevor was a maniac...he wasn't funny as much as he was just amusing. Waking up in a tutu is not satire.

So list me all the hilarious satire in GTAV. Don't include the radio.

Wait...okay so how about that crazy feminist they run into who you race against. Is that satire? I hope not because I didn't laugh once and it just seemed mean spirited, predictable, and been there done that. Again where is this satire you claim the game has? It doesn't have it. It isn't funny.

lets just hope you werent one of the ones trolling her back when she came out with the review

I think it's an 8/10 game.

The main campaign was well done and interesting, But after that, it becomes the same repetitive experience that GTA has always been. Just driving around and shooting people.

And my biggest gripe with the series remains the same...it's a rather linear gaming world masquerading as an open world setting. You can go inside of maybe, what...10 buildings in the entire game? You can't even go inside the bars, diners and nightclubs that you can buy.

Rockstar also fed us a bunch of bullshit before release. The map is supposed to be bigger than San Andreas, GTA IV and Red Dead Redemption combined? No it isn't. It's roughly the same size as San Andreas. Unless you want to count the underwater areas where there is jack shit to do/explore besides pick up nuclear waste in a submarine for extra cash.

GTA Online has been a massive disappointment as well. It feels broken and the character creator is beyond laughable.

At this point, I just want Rockstar to focus on the Red Dead series or do something new entirely.

Do you believe video games are art? If you do, then why should reviews avoid criticisms of video games but not other art. We should we be objectively reviewing paintings with no political statements? Please, give me an objective review of the Sistine Chapel without discussing the politics behind and in the painting. You will miss a vast majority of the interesting history and meaning behind the work if you do.

Someone has clearly never faced discrimination for their race, sexual-orientation, or gender.

Such pretension. You do know that one CAN enjoy art for art's sake and that it is not necessary to look at "political" messages to do so.

The palette, lighting and shading, skill employed are all subject to review without mentioning ANY perceived/intended politics.

One can enjoy art for art's sake, but you must understand that it is almost impossible to separate the meaning of art for the art itself. Not every film has a political message, Toy Story for example, doesn't have a political message. Grand Theft Auto V on the other hand, frequently attempts to discuss and/or satirize politics of the modern world, and I would argue that Grand Theft Auto is likely meant to be a satire of our current culture as a whole. However satire is not a safety net. There is good satire, and bad satire. Any time you create a piece of satire, you run the risk of just becoming the thing you were attempting to satirize, a "have your cake and eat it too" moment if you will. If Grand Theft Auto meant to satirize the way in which women are viewed in our society, by attempting to make violence or misogyny in the game disturbing or uncomfortable but instead fails to do just that, then the satire falls flat on it's face and the game simply comes off as misogynistic.

You may say I'm being pretentious, but I would like to believe that there is more meaning to art, than sheer "enjoyment". Breaking Bad isn't something I would call "enjoyable" the series quite frequently made me feel uncomfortable with the violence. There is a scene in The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (2011 Version) which absolutely disturbed me to the point of wanting to throw up. "Enjoyable" is not what I would call that film. Is it a film I would watch again? Yes. Was the film a well made, excellent piece of art? Yes. Enjoyable is not something I would describe it as because it made me uncomfortable and disturbed, and that is the POINT of the film. Horror games are not by definition enjoyable, being terrified is not an enjoyable experience. Art has meaning to it, and it is not always meant to be enjoyable. Art may contain social, political, religious, or other statements that are meant to invoke a wide range of feelings or emotions. To ignore that, to boil art down to an objective number of quality would be the greatest disservice to the arts because at that point you devalue and take the meaning out of the art.

Oh for fucks sake. No two people will ever see art the same way in regard to message. If you need someone to tell you what to see then you're not doing it correctly. Have your own opinion man. And yes....you CAN separate a message from art.

Then you followed up your assertion with a contradiction to your main point by your Toy Story example. Grand Theft Auto V is not the main point most people have been using in this thread. It's the review of said product. The score is immaterial. At least in regard to what the main point is here. It's not even the satire itself.....whatever SUBJECTIVE opinion you have on their ability to create satire to your satisfaction or not.

The main problem is this....it's a review of a game. As such....the reviewer's political agenda is not important. Sure...the reviewer can feel free to write a critique of the message/satire/ideas of the game if wanted. But to use them in review...is pushing an agenda. And that is the main complaint here. It also seems as though the reviewer doesn't understand the game series. Do you pick up and play GTA because of political messages? Or do you just want to waste sometime in that world? There are many movies that show negative images of society/people/characters. Do you need an opinion piece for every movie? Of do you just escape to the world and form your own ideas? Which honesty is what art is supposed to be about. YOU and how it affects you. Not have someone spoon feed you an agenda.

Enjoyable as your adjective can be used by someone to say they enjoyed the movie enough that they would see it again. It does not inherently mean the movie made you happy. But that is beside the point. The experience was yours...that is how it should be. Not everyone reacts to art in the same way. That's okay. Part of the enjoyment is the personal experience one has with it.

And I frankly think anyone looking to GTA for positive messages just doesn't get the series. And that is why I think the review should have been done by someone else. And like I said....an op piece could have been done. Just not the review.

I was discriminated against my whole damn life. Very ignorant to jump to conclusions like that. Just because I don't moan and whinge like a bitch about doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I would rather live my life than focus on the shit parts of it.

So GTAV is satire but we're not allowed to comment on that satire? Bullspit man. If the game wants to be one thing then a critic has every right to say whether or not they felt rockstar succeeded.

Do you know why nobody discusses sexism and mysogyny in Saints Row IV? Because that game is clearly just a parody without meaning, without satire.

If a game dares to say "hey look we're saying something" then a critic has a right to discuss if they failed or succeeded in their humble opinion. If GTAV doesn't want that subject on the table then remove all the pretention and just be silly. Stop pretending like you want to say something. GTAV does want to have its cake and eat it too. Sorry that's not happening. If you put it out there then it's fair game. And Carolyn had every right to comment on it. Gamespot posted her review and they have no problem with it. So if you don't like it stop giving Gamestop clicks by coming to their forums every day. They clearly promote free open criticism of games. If you want someone to "just shut up and talk about the graphics" then go somewhere else. Some of us appreciate a deeper look at our favorite hobby.

lol post more bs.

Oh look it's you again. Hi.

GTA games have always been more challenging than most action games. The rc helicopter mission from Vice City especially. It's nice to have a few games that test your motor skills. If you don't like a little challenge there are plenty of easy games to choose from.

I thought the shooting was fine with manual aim. Far better than any other open world game besides RDR. You can change the crosshair btw.

I laughed plenty. Just because you don't find it amusing doesn't mean it isn't satire. I've sat through many sitcoms without laughing, doesn't mean they aren't sitcoms.

He could have used a specific scene that some people would consider satire and try to prove why it's not.

This guy argues that GTA V is a satire and gives examples https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kqS3AUZSds

Why would the COD scene be funny 5 years ago and not now?

Amusing and funny go hand in hand. Not all of GTA's attempts at humor are satire.

Most people consider the game to be a satire. It's the few who don't that need to prove otherwise.

Just because many classify the game as satire it doesn't mean that every attempt at humor is satire.

I take it you are referring to the foot race. Would you have rather they had the typical superficial conversation people might have in this situation in real life? I found some of the insults to be funny in that section.