the question is what makes a game a ten. obviously we all have different "opinions" since many journalists gave gta a 10 on a 100 point scale , and many seem to agree with it . personally i think that a perfect 100 can only be given to games that have fine presentational value from graphics, to music, etc. there has to be decent length to the game (over 10 hrs) or some forn of replay value. and most importantly the gameplay has to be overwhelmingly immersive and so damn close to perfect that it pushes the the genre.

i dont believe gta has accomplished that. from the time niko arrived in america to the when he finally capped jimmy pegerino, it seeemed to me that all the best content in gta existed outside the gameplay. script, vioce acting, motion capture, music, extras, all that was outside the gameplay. the one thing that i thought stood out in the gameplay was th interaction between u and the AI via the euphoria engine. i heard on a postcast that if u want to find anything else u like, just get in a car and hit someone. i love the reaction that u get , and finally not having to deal with ragdoll physics. but the one thing that critics have raved about is what brings gta from achieving a 10 imo, the gameplay. no one can dissagree with the upgrade from the lock on system to a free aim cover system. but some missions in the game didnt compliment the cover system properly, which frushtrates the gameplay. they say thatu can use everything for cover, unfortunately not everything should be used in that manner. also often when stationed in tight spaces, its far too easy to accidentally take cover behind that leaves u open to enemy fire. another isse with the cover system is sometimes the aim draggs, making u to readjust it and take aim again. other debatable issues can fall in repettitive missions, and anarchy like multiplayer

with all these issues in the game, to me there's not question that gta doesnt deserve a perfect score. a 5, 10, 20 point scale? that's fine. but 100? 9.8 at best.