How did GTAIV get a 10?

I just don't get it. What about GTAIV deserved in a 10? As far as content, it was lacking to its own previous games. Had no long lasting value after you finished the main storyline, multiplayer was terrible, there were no memorable characters, at the end of the day San Andreas, hell, even Vice City had more than this. Yet neither of them got the AAAA.

What exactly made this shabby GTA the one to get the AAAA? Even so, how can people think this is deserving of GOTY in any way?

Because it's a fantastic game. And the reviewer has an opinion. :o Also, why always so negative, TC? fakecliche

I don't mean to be negative, just bringing up some things that didn't make sense to me. If you go back and look at the GTAIV review it's like he didn't even finish the game when he wrote it, if he did he would have noticed the flaws that the game has.

Vice City got a 9.6, as far as end game content it's about on the same level with GTAIV. Give or take.

San Andreas also scored a 9.6, seems very consistent with how GS reviewed GTA games . As far as content, San Andreas takes the cake with enough features to keep you interested long after you've finished the storyline.

GTAIV scored a 10, yet loses a lot of features the previous games had and while it does improve on some things, if you take account for the content loses, the four point leap doesn't seem justified.

[QUOTE="fakecliche"]Because it's a fantastic game. And the reviewer has an opinion. :o Also, why always so negative, TC? LittleHands134

I don't mean to be negative, just bringing up some things that didn't make sense to me. If you go back and look at the GTAIV review it's like he didn't even finish the game when he wrote it, if he did he would have noticed the flaws that the game has.

Vice City got a 9.6, as far as end game content it's about on the same level with GTAIV. Give or take.

San Andreas also scored a 9.6, seems very consistent with how GS reviewed GTA games . As far as content, San Andreas takes the cake with enough features to keep you interested long after you've finished the storyline.

GTAIV scored a 10, yet loses a lot of features the previous games had and while it does improve on some things, if you take account for the content loses, the four point leap doesn't seem justified.

It's a quality > quantity sorta thing.

Worlds most overrated game, alongside Halo and CS. I was morbidly disapointed in it.pseudocaesar

Nah, MGS4 is far more overrated than GTA, Halo, and CS.

[QUOTE="LittleHands134"]

[QUOTE="fakecliche"]Because it's a fantastic game. And the reviewer has an opinion. :o Also, why always so negative, TC? fakecliche

I don't mean to be negative, just bringing up some things that didn't make sense to me. If you go back and look at the GTAIV review it's like he didn't even finish the game when he wrote it, if he did he would have noticed the flaws that the game has.

Vice City got a 9.6, as far as end game content it's about on the same level with GTAIV. Give or take.

San Andreas also scored a 9.6, seems very consistent with how GS reviewed GTA games . As far as content, San Andreas takes the cake with enough features to keep you interested long after you've finished the storyline.

GTAIV scored a 10, yet loses a lot of features the previous games had and while it does improve on some things, if you take account for the content loses, the four point leap doesn't seem justified.

It's a quality > quantity sorta thing.

I see what your point, but what quality did GTAIV really bring to the table that the previous games didn't already have? Excluding graphics because that's not really fair, I remember thinking vice city looked very good for that time.

Shooting and aiming seemed improved, but not a huge amount if you look at San Andreas.

The cover system was great.

Storyline was good, but it was hardly any better than the previous GTA games.

Customization features were just completely out the window. A small selection of clothing changing, but they forget about weight gain, hair cuts, tattoos, car customization, and the things that most people loved in previous GTA games.

While I don't really have much of a problem with GTAIV scoring a 10, because I enjoyed the game, it seems inconsistent that it would score a 10 when the games before it only scored a 9.6 yet had much more quality.

I just don't get it. What about GTAIV deserved in a 10? As far as content, it was lacking to its own previous games. Had no long lasting value after you finished the main storyline, multiplayer was terrible, there were no memorable characters, at the end of the day San Andreas, hell, even Vice City had more than this. Yet neither of them got the AAAA.

What exactly made this shabby GTA the one to get the AAAA? Even so, how can people think this is deserving of GOTY in any way?

LittleHands134

i completely agree.

i beat it and never poped it in again. there is close to Zero replay value. One would figure if a game takes place in one of the biggest financial districts of the world there would be A REASON to use money. gta4's money is worthless.

[QUOTE="fakecliche"][QUOTE="LittleHands134"]

[QUOTE="fakecliche"]Because it's a fantastic game. And the reviewer has an opinion. :o Also, why always so negative, TC? LittleHands134

I don't mean to be negative, just bringing up some things that didn't make sense to me. If you go back and look at the GTAIV review it's like he didn't even finish the game when he wrote it, if he did he would have noticed the flaws that the game has.

Vice City got a 9.6, as far as end game content it's about on the same level with GTAIV. Give or take.

San Andreas also scored a 9.6, seems very consistent with how GS reviewed GTA games . As far as content, San Andreas takes the cake with enough features to keep you interested long after you've finished the storyline.

GTAIV scored a 10, yet loses a lot of features the previous games had and while it does improve on some things, if you take account for the content loses, the four point leap doesn't seem justified.

It's a quality > quantity sorta thing.

I see what your point, but what quality did GTAIV really bring to the table that the previous games didn't already have? Excluding graphics because that's not really fair, I remember thinking vice city looked very good for that time.

Shooting and aiming seemed improved, but not a huge amount if you look at San Andreas.

The cover system was great.

Storyline was good, but it was hardly any better than the previous GTA games.

Customization features were just completely out the window. A small selection of clothing changing, but they forget about weight gain, hair cuts, tattoos, car customization, and the things that most people loved in previous GTA games.

While I don't really have much of a problem with GTAIV scoring a 10, because I enjoyed the game, it seems inconsistent that it would score a 10 when the games before it only scored a 9.6 yet had much more quality.

Total immersion.

Seriously, just drive around the city for 5 minutes.

Also, what you consider quality and what the reviewer considere quality could be completely different.

Goes to show you that scores dont matter.

it deserves no more than a 8.0

I agree with some of your arguments, but disagree with others. There's no lasting appeal after the main story is done, that's for sure. It had less content (as in, things to do) than the other games, thats for sure. But I enjoyed the multiplayer. It's really fun and can be competitive. Also, I think Jacob was really memorable. I'm glad that he **SPOILERS** didn't die at the end **END SPOILERS** because he was really cool, funny, and in his own rastafarian way, badass.deluxemando

I agree that Jacob was one of the few memorable characters of that game. I loved his humor. Yet, with main characters like Niko, I felt no connection. At least no where near the connection I felt with CJ in San Andreas.

As for the multiplayer, it seemed like it could have been good but the only game mode that seemed to be actively played was the free roam one. While even that could have been fun, I found that most games consisted of people doing their own thing, meeting up in one of the various areas for a quick shoot out, but it almost always degraded into a shouting match with some young guy whining in his squeaky voice about how someone shot at his helicopter.

From what I played, I disliked multiplayer quite a bit.

[QUOTE="deluxemando"]I agree with some of your arguments, but disagree with others. There's no lasting appeal after the main story is done, that's for sure. It had less content (as in, things to do) than the other games, thats for sure. But I enjoyed the multiplayer. It's really fun and can be competitive. Also, I think Jacob was really memorable. I'm glad that he **SPOILERS** didn't die at the end **END SPOILERS** because he was really cool, funny, and in his own rastafarian way, badass.LittleHands134

I agree that Jacob was one of the few memorable characters of that game. I loved his humor. Yet, with main characters like Niko, I felt no connection. At least no where near the connection I felt with CJ in San Andreas.

As for the multiplayer, it seemed like it could have been good but the only game mode that seemed to be actively played was the free roam one. While even that could have been fun, I found that most games consisted of people doing their own thing, meeting up in one of the various areas for a quick shoot out, but it almost always degraded into a shouting match with some young guy whining in his squeaky voice about how someone shot at his helicopter.

From what I played, I disliked multiplayer quite a bit.

CJ is easily the worst main character in the GTA franchise, sadly.

[QUOTE="jakarai"]basically the reviewers wanted to give the fans of the series what they wanted no matter how terrible or boring the game was. a perfect score for a over hyped game. fakecliche

Calling GTA IV "terrible" won't make you more credible than the reviewers. You can have your opinions, but to call a well polished, well rounded game "terrible", is just not very valid.

The controls and driving phyisics in this game were horrible ruined the whole game for me.

[QUOTE="fakecliche"]

[QUOTE="jakarai"]basically the reviewers wanted to give the fans of the series what they wanted no matter how terrible or boring the game was. a perfect score for a over hyped game. jakarai

Calling GTA IV "terrible" won't make you more credible than the reviewers. You can have your opinions, but to call a well polished, well rounded game "terrible", is just not very valid.

The controls and driving phyisics in this game were horrible ruined the whole game for me.

Hmm, works fine for me. It's hard to go back and play the old ones now.

[QUOTE="LittleHands134"]

[QUOTE="deluxemando"]I agree with some of your arguments, but disagree with others. There's no lasting appeal after the main story is done, that's for sure. It had less content (as in, things to do) than the other games, thats for sure. But I enjoyed the multiplayer. It's really fun and can be competitive. Also, I think Jacob was really memorable. I'm glad that he **SPOILERS** didn't die at the end **END SPOILERS** because he was really cool, funny, and in his own rastafarian way, badass.fakecliche

I agree that Jacob was one of the few memorable characters of that game. I loved his humor. Yet, with main characters like Niko, I felt no connection. At least no where near the connection I felt with CJ in San Andreas.

As for the multiplayer, it seemed like it could have been good but the only game mode that seemed to be actively played was the free roam one. While even that could have been fun, I found that most games consisted of people doing their own thing, meeting up in one of the various areas for a quick shoot out, but it almost always degraded into a shouting match with some young guy whining in his squeaky voice about how someone shot at his helicopter.

From what I played, I disliked multiplayer quite a bit.

CJ is easily the worst main character in the GTA franchise, sadly.

I don't know, I liked him quite a bit. While he can't compare to Tommy from Vice City, I think he's compareable to Niko. His character was interesting and had quite a bit of depth, same with Niko, but for me he just had a certain aspect to him that I liked. With Niko though, I found him annoying me more than he didn't.

Edit: Logging out for the night, I'll respond to any responses when I wake up if the thread is still around the first few pages.

because....it was a fun game?ice144

GTAIV is an 8 in my book. I will never understand how anyone can consider the story Oscar worthy... It's really a generic crime drama, although the entire "American Dream" idea and spitting in its face was well executed. The multiplayer was only good because I had a friend to just screw around with, other than that it' boring just going in a game on your own.

Honestly I was so dissapointed after all my friends telling me how awesome the missions (especially the bank robbing mission, what was so great about it?) were.

[QUOTE="LittleHands134"][QUOTE="fakecliche"][QUOTE="LittleHands134"]

[QUOTE="fakecliche"]Because it's a fantastic game. And the reviewer has an opinion. :o Also, why always so negative, TC? ice144

I don't mean to be negative, just bringing up some things that didn't make sense to me. If you go back and look at the GTAIV review it's like he didn't even finish the game when he wrote it, if he did he would have noticed the flaws that the game has.

Vice City got a 9.6, as far as end game content it's about on the same level with GTAIV. Give or take.

San Andreas also scored a 9.6, seems very consistent with how GS reviewed GTA games . As far as content, San Andreas takes the cake with enough features to keep you interested long after you've finished the storyline.

GTAIV scored a 10, yet loses a lot of features the previous games had and while it does improve on some things, if you take account for the content loses, the four point leap doesn't seem justified.

It's a quality > quantity sorta thing.

I see what your point, but what quality did GTAIV really bring to the table that the previous games didn't already have? Excluding graphics because that's not really fair, I remember thinking vice city looked very good for that time.

Shooting and aiming seemed improved, but not a huge amount if you look at San Andreas.

The cover system was great.

Storyline was good, but it was hardly any better than the previous GTA games.

Customization features were just completely out the window. A small selection of clothing changing, but they forget about weight gain, hair cuts, tattoos, car customization, and the things that most people loved in previous GTA games.

While I don't really have much of a problem with GTAIV scoring a 10, because I enjoyed the game, it seems inconsistent that it would score a 10 when the games before it only scored a 9.6 yet had much more quality.

Total immersion.

Seriously, just drive around the city for 5 minutes.

Also, what you consider quality and what the reviewer considere quality could be completely different.

I didn't feel immersed 1 time during that game. I drove around the city plenty of times, and it got to the point where I would only take Taxis.

the same way mgs4 got a 10

HYPE

but thats just the way i see it

It got a 10 because it was the most over-hyped game ever. I would only really give it a 9.7, 9.8 at most.i_pk_pjers_i

real big difference there

[QUOTE="ice144"]because....it was a fun game?fluxorator

[QUOTE="fluxorator"][QUOTE="ice144"]because....it was a fun game?fluxorator

i do have to agree with this also :( ...maybe the DLC will provide us with some really crazy stuff

[QUOTE="fluxorator"][QUOTE="fluxorator"][QUOTE="ice144"]because....it was a fun game?xXMcClaneXx

i do have to agree with this also :( ...maybe the DLC will provide us with some really crazy stuff

To me GTAIV suprised me on many levels. The first thing that suprised me was it actually had a story that i liked and wanted to know what was gonna happen next. In GTA VC and SA i didnt care about the story and didnt finish the story lines of either one. Wether you like the story or not is personal prefrence but i loved it. Second is I was suprised how polished it was for an open world game. There where some glitches but no where near as many as the past games.

I never hear anyone bring this up but in multiplayer i didnt think it would have been technically possible to use the whole city, but they did.

I do wish they had more to do after the story line but it was so fun, even if it didnt have multiplayer i would give it a 9.5 but since it does have some ok multiplayer i think its deserving of the 10's it got.

If an cheesy , boring , far fetched and incredible long movie with just a couple of hours of wooden animated , old school controlled but still interesting game-play thrown in can get a 10 then so can GTA4 .

Or any game for that matter .

the same way mgs4 got a 10

HYPE

but thats just the way i see it

surrealnumber5

the same way mgs4 got a 10

HYPE

but thats just the way i see it

surrealnumber5

Well, To me MGS4 is the GREATEST GAME I EVER played in 40 years so was that hype? No.

its just an opinion so it doesnt matter, to GameSpot its a 10 in their eyes as MGS4 is a 1000000000000000/5 to mine.

Tony Hawk 2 and GTA IV getting a 10/10 will always blow my mind. 9/10 at best, but more 8/10 imo.

Neither of those games should be anywhere near a 10/1.

GTA IV is very good, but just not perfect imo.

If an cheesy , boring , far fetched and incredible long movie with just a couple of hours of wooden animated , old school controlled but still interesting game-play thrown in can get a 10 then so can GTA4 .

Or any game for that matter .

Caseytappy

The best sandbox game i;ve played so far. The story was rly good due the great voiceacting, believable characters, and movie-like camerawork during the cutscenes.

It was just so immersive, and diverse. In my book one of the best games i;ve ever played.

I think the game is overrated, but some people really, really liked the game, while others hated it.

It seems to be a love it - hate it type game, and the reviewer was just on the opposite side from you.