I didn't read the review, because IGN makes me yawn, but one point more than Klax on Lynx? I don't think so, IGN. brb, going to go protest outside their office.

Not in the Aussie version! :tpg:

Except that I did read the review, Lord Byron. And if you completely wipe the memory of past incarnations of something before you see it, I congratulate you on your Goldfish like memory. I'm sure it comes in very handy for you. Man, the last time I stuck my hand in an oven it sure hurt, but this is a different oven, a newer oven. This one has digital knobs instead of dials. Sure is a good thing I can forget the pain of being horridly burned long enough to do it again!

You know what else they said in that review?

Please. Could you be more full of shit. Rockstar's never shown the slightest inclination towards writing (see? This is that previous exposure thing we covered earlier) and now they should be up for best writing noms? Wow, that sure sounds like something you would say in order to get an exclusive online review of a major game! It sure is good that isn't what this is. O wait. It is? Awkward.

INNOVATIVE! It's like game notes, only it's your cell phone! Crazy!

Wow, that's actually impressive, except... o wait...

Oh, so really what the reviewer is saying is that he thought the guys were jerks, and then went out to slaughter people. Yeah. Brilliant.

MORE innovations! Non-story impacting branches! WOW! I could hop over a fucking goomba without fireballing the little fucker, and it does the same thing.

Didn't goldeneye do this same thing? I know some of the old EIDOS games did.

There was a whole shitty game based around this already.



So, really. They gave it a 10 because it was innovative and pushed boundaries? Did -YOU- read that review? Because to me it sounded a lot like someone got paid some coin to write a review describing elements that have been around for a long time, slap a 10 out of 10 on it, call it innovative, and get an exclusive review for their trouble.

I'm sorry, Diversion, but I have to say. It doesn't sound like you took the time to really read it.

I read it and it looks like exaggeration to be sure. They even awarded a ten to each individual category. This reminds me of how EGM gave Vice City and San Andreas straight tens even though they were each variations on a theme with slight upgrades here and there. Oscar-caliber story? Connecting with Niko in a way that one rarely does with game characters? More parts of the game are better than anything she's seen in gaming for the past ten years? In all honesty, it sounds like what I expected, but with the importance of each enhancement pumped up to be something out of this world just because it happens to be in a much-anticipated GTA title. So now it incorporates over the shoulder aiming and a more melodramatic story where morality choices (which the review admits hardly affects the outcome of events) play a factor. Say hello to RE4 for the former and numerous RPGs for the latter. Seven pages worth of words to basically say that it's a more detailed GTA title that adds a couple of new things to the mix.

So it takes what other GTA games did and makes each element a bit better. That's what a sequel is supposed to do, and I'm not sure how it merits a ten in this case. I seriously doubt that it does, actually. I have no doubt that the game is going to be great fun, but the review hypes it up like if it's some remarkable artistic achievement, when it's just using the same formula that made GTA3 so successful. And I definitely noticed when she admits that it's more subtle than GTA3 in terms of taking a leap forward.

Anyways, GTA is GTA. Fun games, but the exceedingly high ratings are the result of media hype. Casual gamers buy these games in droves, and I've enjoyed a few myself, but the GTA games aren't going to show up in the top ten or twenty favorite game of all time lists of hardcore gamers. They just aren't inspired enough. The sandbox gameplay surely offers something to any kind of gamer, but the general 'Scarface fantasy' approach is so obviously targeted towards the casual gamer. If I want to see a story with tortured souls, I can play Valkyrie Profile and get 10x the artistry in my experience.

In short, GTA3, Vice City (I got tired of the formula after this one), and San Andreas all got built up to be god's gift and they paled in comparison to games like Deus Ex and System Shock 2 (which both came out in the last ten years) in terms of artistry, originality, and lasting impact on a person (on me, but I bet that most seasoned gamers feel similarly). Nothing in the review suggests that GTAIV will be any different. The Chrono Triggers, the Marios/Zeldas/Metroids, and the Metal Gear Solids of the gaming world have nothing to fear from the technical prowess of GTAIV.

Also, Earthbound rules.

I was going to take your post seriously right up until you mentioned Metal Gear Solid, Mario and Zelda as equal series'.

Ahahaha, nice one.

Anyways, back on topic here, I got the special edition coming in. Any word on what's going to be on the soundtrack? Can't wait to rip it up with all you motherfuckers online.

Also are people ever going to come up with anything better for the PC than fucking SS2? Cause man, GTA certainly doesn't have shit on a game from nearly ten fucking years ago.

Um, folks. Protips. No one said anything about really giving a shit what the review was all about. Diversion even went so far as to say the whole thing was sensationalist tripe, but that even so, it brough up interesting points that might be worth a second look. Deni, cherry picking your arguments and picking out what is OBVIOUSLY THE EXAGGERATED CRAP that was already mentioned just goes to show how much you skimmed of everyone else's arguments. Now you're just starting shit for the sake of starting shit.

RPG faggots coming out of the woodwork to be useless shitsacks sure is entertaining, though. What is it with big name releases and people trying oh-so-hard to appear hardcore by dissing a god damn review from a non-reputable source. WOW.

Holy fuck, guys. Your local paper gave a good review to a Harry Potter book! Let's have all the faux-intellectuals strut their stuff and say how much of a ripoff of Tolkien it is!

Fuck, you people make me CRY.

I wonder why you rarely see people in jrpg threads derailing it and trying argue that Dues Ex, System Shock 2 and Planescape: Torment are all better experiences of the past decade. to get back on topic:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3101/...f2c345d2_o.gif
http://i31.tinypic.com/25fq2dg.gif

They're not familiar with the Kane and Lynch fiasco. I wouldn't bother with it, really. You're probably arguing against the people that said that Halo 3 was better than Halo 2, which was better than Halo 1, which all deserved a 12/10 or something for absolute perfection, blah blah blah. Based on the series being popular, someone will give it a ten. Others will be afraid to rate it otherwise, assuming they'll lose their jobs as well. You know already what the game offers by comparison to the others in the series and you already know what sort of "rating" it deserves in comparison to other titles.

No need to beat around the bush, just admit you're pissed that the PC version doesn't even have a release date yet.

But in all seriousness, If you don't like the game, stay outta the fuckin' thread. Plenty of us here enjoy the GTA series and when a select few of you pull this petty thread derailing crap, you make this place look like Neogaf and that shit ain't cool.

You called me out on it. I'm secretly upset about a PC version of a game in a series that I haven't played since the second one. I played a few minutes of the third one, didn't like it because the premise was the same and the content wasn't really appealing for repeating. Gosh, you called me out on that one, alright. Or perhaps I was trying to let people know how useless reviews are when in terms of numbers. I made a reference to the incident (you don't seem to be familiar) where a reviewer was fired after giving Kane and Lynch a poor review while they were encouraged to hype the game and give it high marks. I'm saying that if you want to score a title, go by the progression made between titles and judge it based on what it does differently. I'm viewing it in terms of what a customer would ask me what is new. I'd tell them that it has more of an open world and also features a multiplayer addition. I don't tell the customer that I give it a 9.8 based on this or that.

But.. but.. this is the internet!

"New game announced!"
"GONNA BE SHIT"
"I haven't told you what it is!"
"YOU'RE SHIT"

Then if you have no interest in the series, why do you feel you must be a fuckwit and add more meaningless drivel to the thread and further derail it from it's intended target of discussing GTAIV?

I know all about Gerstmann gate but it has no bearing on this thread or discussion whatsoever and trying to explain it while bringing up Halo 3 along with it shows you're just being a jackass. If you haven't played the game or have no intention of doing so, how in the fuck can you think you know the differences between this game and the past versions? Yes, we all know the majority of reviews are generally wrong, but at least the reviewer can be given the benefit of the doubt because they actually played the fuckin game before passing judgement unlike certain people in this thread.

Wow thank you! I learn something new every day!

Haha for a minute I though GTA4 was released and people actually had the ability to form some first hand opinions on the game and if it actually is deserving of a 10/10 or not.

I heard that in GTA 4 you can stream your own songs in your car on multiplayer mode.

Imagine that

Wait you mean I could do a drive-by on someone bumping to the Lucky Star OP and the other people would hear it? Because that would be all kinds of awesome right there.

It should be obvious that everyone's entitled to their own thoughts on a topic, but there is a large, fat line that's as thick as Mo0 and Sass combined between expressing it and flat out being a troll shithead.

Just don't cross it folks, threadbans are already getting handed out.

Sorry, I thought discussing the review's score for GTA4 was somehow related to the discussion for GTA4.

The point that I made was in regards to numbers being shit and that everyone should lay off it. I made the reference to Halo as some people figure "hey, popular series, the next one must be better than the last" while its pretty obvious that Halo 3 was better than 2. So, just in case it takes a second say: Everyone shut the hell up about the score. The only people who care are those who want to give it a 50 out of 10 or the people who want to give it a -50 out of 10. Either way, same result: the 50s will play it, the -50s won't. That's it.

I read to see what major differences there are. Adding multiplayer is a significant difference, but from what I read, it doesn't seem to be appealing enough for me to want to play it. Key word: ME. The premise of robbing, killing, stealing, and whatnot is still the same. Are you then not allowed to say if its any good because you haven't played it though? No, you can gather plenty by the text, screenshots, and videos. You then make a decision on your own as to whether or not the core changes are appealing.

Did I say it sucks? Did I say that it lacks? You can tell a good amount about a game before it comes out. The progression of difficulty, replay value, or online stability are just a few things that really can't be ascertained from preliminary impressions, but you can get a decent idea of what it is. This is why people can pre-order a game. You can tell enough if you think it looks interesting.

Would you prefer I go to someone's house and play it Tuesday morning, then come back and give a detailed description as to why I don't like it? I'd give a mixed confirmation of my opinion of the title as well as how it compares to other similar or new games (such categories as sound quality, graphical quality, voice acting, controls, story development).

Whatever happened to giving your opinion and then moving on? Do we really have to sit here and argue for 12 pages about why someone doesn't like something or why they do? Nobody here can honestly be stupid enough to assume they are changing anyone's opinion on the subject-- so how about we just drop it before this topic basically becomes an unreadable mess except to everyone in the played out fucking argument?

"Everyone shut the hell up about the score"? Look, people in this thread were looking forward to GTAIV even before the 10/10 scores started rolling out. Nobody in here has run around screaming how it's going to be the best game ever due to numbers in a review. Your comment is worthless because it's addressing an argument that doesn't even exist.

I don't know what you're talking about, but I didn't put in my pre-order until AFTER the 10/10 came out. Completely disregard the fact that this doesn't make sense because they stopped taking special edition preorders before the review dropped.

It just is. 10/10 motherfucker.

This is not really surprising. The videos and the images already told you that this would happen as well as the fact that they postponed the game several times and the fact that it's not really reasonable to bash a game that is without any doubt going to change videogame history, whether you like it or not.

I mean, I can understand that now there are some people extremely disappointed that IGN didn't fuck up like they did with Kingdom Hearts 2 two years ago, they still think it's one of the biggest hypes in videogame history, but in the end, as I said, whether you like it or not, this seems to be an awesome game. I mean, does it really matter whether it's a perfect ten or just a nine point eight?

So it got a 10/10 review. So what. As we all know, there have been TONS of games that have gotten great reviews that people disliked for various reasons, games that have gotten a perfect 10/10 review that people really DID like, and games that didn't do as well that people liked/disliked anyway. So as Garr said, maybe we should just wait and see.

For me, I'm not really that interested. Can't do multiplayer and never really liked single-mode. I mean, I played GTA1, and while it IS fun to blow off some steam or whatever for a few hours, it's not a game that I'll be playing endlessly. Just not my type...