a ten out of ten, a perfect score, for a game that the only reason people like it is because you don't have to play the game. Let's face it, when asked why people like GTA do they say it has excellent missions, brilliant characterisation or anything to do with the main game at all? No, they are simply overjoyed by the fact that you can kill prostitutes and shoot the police with a rocket launcher. Yes this is fun, I'm not saying it isn't, I'm saying that that isn't a reason to give a game a perfect score, a better score maybe but the basis of the main game is too flawed for it to get ten out of ten.

Let me begin with the fact that everybody seems to be obsessed with the whole free roaming element of the game and the way it was one of the first to do so. Well no it bloody wasn't and this really get's on my nerves. The Legend of Zelda, yes the one on the NES, was essenctially free roaming. You grab your sword and then you can visit anywhere on the map and the first few dungeons in any order. Yes the later ones require some items to access, but soon as GTA has entire islands that are inacessable untill later in the game i think we can let it slide don't you? So all this praise it's getting for being revolutionary is simply it being like games made decades before it, yes there was less to do besides the main plot back then and you couldn't shoot old grannies but if you fancided it you could just explore the map and kill stuff, pretty similar if you ask me. Plus, as i mentioned before, over half the game you can't access untill much later in the game anywya, which brings me neatly to my next problem.

The missions, are all the same. It's usually drive here, shoot him, drive back, and when it's not your usually just pickin someone/thing up and taking him/her/it somewhere before driving back. Yes sometimes it may be one bloke, sometimes twenty but it's all pretty much the same thing, you might think that you could say that of most games but it's the way it's done, it's not a game like Gears of Halo where there are different types of enemy, it's just blokes sometimes with different weapons. Soon as this is the main focus of the game, and given the fact that there is so much chance for variety, you would think that they would put in a little more effort to bring that variety into the main game. Where are the missions where you have to go get a prostitute, shag her, kill her and get your money back, soon as it's pretty much what people brought the game for.

GTA is also a prime example of the jack of all trades master of none. It's not a particullarly good driving game, the shootings not tight enough, the combat is flawed and it's not a great life sim. Just because you offer variety doesn't mean you must skimp on quality, even though this is ussually the case. The game would be okay if just the driving and shooting worked well but even that seems a little too much to ask, let's start with the shooting. To put it simply it's just not good enough, it's not broken as it were but when the first and third person shooter has been knocking about for over a decade, there's not much of an excuse for shoddy target selection along with not the best controls around. Now on to the driving, it's not bad again but I thought we would have this sortted by now, it's driving and in a game like GTA much like Crazy Taxi, you don't want realistic controls you want controls that let you do what you want to do and fast, Crazy Taxi got it right, why can't rockstar.

On a final note, this began as a rant about the GTA games in general but soon as I'm here. Why the hell do you have to go collecting your cousin to take him out on a date every now and then, why I ask, if in any other game it went, oh could you hold on for a minuite there you have to go here and do this with a certain NPC otherwise it could adversly affect your game, it wouldn't be tolerated.

So why oh why does this game get the astounding score of ten, much better games like Resi 4, Fire Emblem, or any of the other amazing games that don't have prostitutes are treated to 8s and 9s. i wouldn't want to give any of the GTAs 9 never mind ten.

Now is it just me or is BF2 heavily over rated, having played the game for around 50 hours now i have found dozens of major and minor flaws with the game. Like the way that when fired up close anti tank missles can eigther delay, not go off untill a few seconds after impact, or simply not expload, and when facing a jeep filled with 3 people that makes you feel slightly cheated.

Tanks are far too overpowered, if there are no choppers on the map then tanks are vertualy indestructable except from perhaps another tank, the anti tank class can take them out but it takes 3 direct hits to destroy a tank, and with reaload and firing time, this comes to about 12 seconds. One bullet from the tank can kill you (sigh), thus making the anti tank class close to useless as when taking on soldiers with the rocket it must hit them or the ground directly below them to kill, a foot the wrong way and you are dead.

firing standing up means that your weapon flails around like a fish out of water meaning you hit nothing whereas lying down makes you an elite sniper able to make shots from the other side of the map, an exageration but there is truth in there. Standing up 10feet away from someone means that they recive vertualy no damage, lying down means that you can get perfect head shots from 50 meters away, now im quite sure that the real armies of the world can shoot standing up!?!

These are just 3 of the many problems without including, getting killed the second you spawn or artillary issues, but serfice to say im not a big fan of battlefield 2. I just find that enemy territory, a free game, seems to be fairer, funner and more enjoyable thatn battlefield2. i would give it a score of around 6.8. so there u have it.