what is there to complain about? it showed action, stealth, de emphasis on QTEs, amazing graphics.... and the impressions from journalists regarding the controls and gunplay have been extremely positive.

the **** are you even talking about? the playstation experience demo was stellar. the game looks fantastic.

I've been playing a lot of the GTA V re-release, so this topic comes at a great time for me to express my aggravation. I suppose this is mostly directed at V, but could be generally applied to mostly all open-world games out there.

V, despite its technical accomplishments, has not done much to expand upon the basic foundation that was built 17 years ago. Many of the game mechanics remain sloppy and/or poorly executed, the mission structure is the same as it's always been (go here, do this, go here, do that), and the formula is familiar. It's frustrating to see such attention paid to every detail of the game world to give such a sense of freedom, yet then be precluded from having much of a say on anything. All R* does is fill their worlds to the brim with shallow, theme-park bullshit (skydiving, stunt jumps, hunting, collect-a-thons, mountain biking, SCUBA, etc) to compliment a very narrow and linear script, yet don't let the player alter the world. I await the day a GTA game arrives that gives me real options.

I want my own Scarface desk to sit down at my mansion to grow my power and run the land through intimidation or corrupt political/judicial sway. There needs to be an underlying infrastructure in place to truly take advantage of what R* has created and to give power that extends past the barrel of a gun. That's where real power resides. I understand this would be no easy undertaking (to put it lightly), but if you had told me 10 years ago we'd have seen a world so fully realized and alive as GTA V portrays, I'd have laughed at you. That was no easy undertaking, yet R* pulled it off. It's possible, and in fact R* has taken steps towards this: the drug mini-game in Chinatown Wars, the stock market V brought into play which allowed the manipulation of share prices by destroying the properties of respective opposing businesses on the map, and heists, which allowed for a tailoring of player style to take on missions. This is what's needed, but they need to centralize these mechanics into one cohesive, underlying, central core system that supports a narrative gameplay focus that progresses the story.

• allow me to extort shops for "protection"
• allow me to run a black market, smuggling drugs and weapons through the ports and adjust the prices on the streets, and set-up major deals
• allow me to hire crews to do hits or intimidation on reluctant "participants"
• allow me to bribe city officials (police, politicians) and infiltrate their organizations
• allow me to buy businesses and run them
• allow me to run drug dealers and hookers and place them on street corners

Etc, etc....

This series, despite its amazing breadth, is really starting to feel like a prison more than a playground. GTA is not much past the merest of illusions, and it's unfortunately one so impressive that it is obscuring gameplay shortcomings that have remained mired in stagnation for years. Even worse, reviewers and gamers are so blown away with each release by the technical prowess on display here that they are blinded to the lack of real gameplay progression that would make it the game it deserves to be, and thus immediately throw out 10s and accolades without a second thought. Hence, giving R* no imputes to improve on anything past the superficial. Just imagine what GTA could be if there were real options the player could do that would truly affect the world to meaningful degrees.

Your sister watching has nothing to do with this. If Portal was purely just a movie of the same events of the game it would not be as meaningful. Clearly you were not paying attention to the small details. The way GLaDOS responds to your actions in the game would not have the same effect if it was done by a character in a film. When you are fighting the AI in the last part of Portal and every time you drop different parts of GLaDOS's "brain" into the incinerator, GLaDOS reacts and changes to this action. If this was done purely with a cinematic cutscene then you shoot down 20 enemies like you would In CoD Ghosts because their limitations on gameplay is set in stone, it would not have the impact that Portal has had on the gaming world. Because of Portal's interactivity and the reaction to how you affect the world around you takes place we have a game that will be remembered forever.

You are going in circles with your argument particularly with Brothers. The story only partly exists because of traditional elements. If it helps you understand, I am in agreement with you on Brothers that you cannot have a story without dialogue and some background, same with Portal. What you fail to accept is that the story does not end with that voice acting or dialogue bubble like it would in a game that has neglected to utilize gameplay for further immersion into a world. You pushing both analogue sticks is the next level of the story in a way that has never been able to be told in books, music, paintings, or film. When you strip away the gameplay elements that have furthered the story or are the entire story in themselves (like almost every Mario game) you have a shallow narrative.

Mario does not have a story in the way that you will understand. mario saving Peach is not the story. That is almost a repeating construct in meta defiance of traditional storytelling. The story is up to you and how you have fun in the different variations of the Mushroom Kingdom.

Games should be telling stories through their gameplay more if we want to see a proper progression of the medium. I am not here to say one method of game making is the all powerful correct way. I am here to say that trying to set up a story that is in complete conflict with your game like say Halo 3 will not elevate the medium the way other avenues like film have brought themselves to. Games that try desperately to be a film are usually lackluster.