[Multiplatform] Grand Theft Auto IV. Not as much fun as shooting real Albanians

I've just played Team Deathmatch for the first time... Wow, so much fun. We should definitely get a GFF team on there and show them how we roll =D

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Mo0

Man, screw achievements, the social club is gonna keep me playing this game.

How are you guys doing on the Liberty City Marathon?



(That little icon means I can print out a certificate... if I felt like getting my printer to work I'd print it just to see what it looks like.)

Have any of the internet's bigger losers bothered to leave their console on overnight with the sticks rubber-banded together in order to be the first to run 400 miles yet? It totally wouldn't surprise me, I'm no longer amazed at the lengths some people will go to to top a meaningless online scoretable.

Also, I see they've extended the 100% club competition by two weeks. I guess not enough people managed it in the first week or something.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs

I've just played Team Deathmatch for the first time... Wow, so much fun. We should definitely get a GFF team on there and show them how we roll =D

We already have been. It often results in hilarity, or Tails flying helicopters into big fuck-off poles on boats. One game I remember us playing had us rolling through the streets decimating the other team.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

So I tried to land with the helicopter on the torch of the Statue of Happiness. It seems that this is impossible (?)

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by OmagnusPrime

We already have been. It often results in hilarity, or Tails flying helicopters into big fuck-off poles on boats. One game I remember us playing had us rolling through the streets decimating the other team.

God damn. Why am I always left out of this shit? ;_; Sounds like you had a right laugh though

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Today, I fucked up that mission where you have to return the cocaine to that black chick like ten times.

I can't believe everyone keeps telling me they beat the game with dying only like three times or shit.

Wow am I stupid or what ;_;

oh, by the way, some review site called "GamerNode" rated GTA IV a 8.7/10, lol

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

A friend of mine was behind cover and then threw a grenade... right into the wall he was taking cover behind. I think you're a-ok, as far the "norm" is concerned.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Musharraf

oh, by the way, some review site called "GamerNode" rated GTA IV a 8.7/10, lol

Good for them. It's about time people stopped bleeting like sheep and actually tried a bit of that integrity stuff.

I was speaking idiomatically.

If there's one game this generation that actually deserves a 9.5+ score, it's Grand Theft Auto IV. You can always find things to complain about, but that's missing the forest for the trees; overall the game is great.

8.7 would be an okay rating if the site was stricter than average with other games as well, but they rated Assassin's Creed 9.0.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Aardark

overall the game is great.

Just not perfection.

How ya doing, buddy?

So what? No game will ever be perfection. When a movie critic gives two thumbs up, do you expect 'perfection' or just a great movie?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

When I see 10/10, it kind of implies perfection. What is the issue here? The fact I see GTAIV as anything but perfect, shouldn't imply that I love it or hate it, so why is it that I get this feeling that people assume I do hate it when I say it isn't perfection? I don't think it's a perfect game, there are things about its game design that don't lend to that, but when I bring this up, I have someone there to bring in its meta content as if game flaws disappear and can't just be "redeemed" via this side content.

So what? Skills point fucking stands, that's what. 8.7 isn't a bad rating for GTAIV, it's more like a realistic one. Feel free to challenge the assertion.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Because there's no way in hell it deserves this many 10/10s when other, equally deserving titles do not hit the same mark. If this is a 10/10, so is Bioshock. So is Super Mario Galaxy. So on and so forth. Objectively (or as close as one can get to it), there is no way that this is the best game in a decade. I'm not hating on it, but fucking open your eyes, folks.

And indeed, kinda funny that an 8.7 is considered SUPER LOW OH MY GOD WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON. It's hardly negative. It's just a tad bit more realistic here.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

The way how I see it:

When reviewers give a game 10s on more than one account, it just feels like they hopped on the hype train.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I'm sorry, but if you're operating on a review system with only 11 discrete values then reserving one for an unattainable scenario is retarded. In fact, by extension of your logic, there's only nine available review scores, because to give something a zero would imply it is the terrible on every level such as to have no redeemable qualities (the antithesis of perfect if you will).

That, my friend, is stupid.

Most amazing jew boots

But then most sites don't operate on scores out of ten, they operate on scores out of a hundred, with a dot in the middle. So, a 10 out of 10 covers more ground than 10.0 out of 10.0

I'm not saying it shouldn't be a ten because it's not "perfect". Ocarina of time is a 10 and it was hardly perfect. But IV has too many shortcomings and oversights despite being an excellent game. 9.0-9.4 then, but hardly 10.0

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Colonel Skills

And indeed, kinda funny that an 8.7 is considered SUPER LOW OH MY GOD WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON. It's hardly negative. It's just a tad bit more realistic here.

That's the hype talk in people.

If people started thinking more about how mathmatically it works, rather than basing it on every other system out there, a 5 would mean average.

I don't know why people that are blinded by the reviewers setting up a system where they can't even enforce it properly. At this point it's like anything below a 7 and people view it as fugly.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Asking a publication to live up to their review system is suddenly stupidity and I'm suddenly not capable of anything but A is A, law of identity, Rorschach, Ayn Rand Objectivism level thinking? All because they have a scale which is inherently flawed for anything but an objectivist's black and white judgment? Cut the fucking shit, Omagnus. If there's anyone or any group of people who's been making concessions and seeing things in gray about GTAIV, it's myself and others. Not reviewers.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Aardark

Well, I don't think 10/10 implies perfection

True, but given that most review scales are bound by 10 meaning perfection, that doesn't speak too well on what critics have to say for themselves. Especially when they start making concessions to a game that they weren't making to other titles. This isn't honesty, it's appeasement if anything. EGM's review was an especially hilarious read, given that they had to explain why their scale says one thing and why they say another thing.

The shoe doesn't fit.

Quote:

And what happens when the game receives the highest rating?

I guess a person's opinion is that a game is perfect, given that critics and reviews are basically professional opinions. I don't take issue when it happens, I take issue when the shit doesn't necessarily line up. Why a groundbreaking game suddenly has to be "perfection" (and that's being kind) baffles me.

How ya doing, buddy?

I'm not saying GTA IV is perfect, it isn't. I don't care to operate in terms of discrete values for ratings even if they extended to a hundred of them rather than ten. I'm not arguing that 8.7 is bad or any of that bollocks, and I agree that giving 100% is probably misleading (10/10 is different though).

Rotor: I was leveling an argument at the interpretation of a 10/10 score, nothing to do with what GTA deserves. Most places that review with an out of 5, or out of 10 style system tend to have descriptions of their reviewing policy which states that 5/5 or 10/10 doesn't imply perfection, just getting close to it.

For example, Eurogamer's policy says this about scores of 10:

Quote:

Let us make absolutely clear that a 10 is not and probably never will be "the perfect game". There's always something criticisable about a game, however small.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by OmagnusPrime

Most places that review with an out of 5, or out of 10 style system tend to have descriptions of their reviewing policy which states that 5/5 or 10/10 doesn't imply perfection, just getting close to it.

EGM already having a disclaimer in place, they certainly felt their review would be controversial enough to merit a handful of words regarding why they were rating the game as 10/10. Again, my point isn't to argue the scale or the disclaimer. I KNOW those things are there. We're talking about a game receiving this score with a disclaimer when several other games, as Skills pointed out, would deserve the same thing given the circumstances.

Granted EGM is one place out of many, but it does seem a bit funny when everyone just falls in line. Where's the integrity? These people are supposed to be professionals, so where's the consistency? It's hilarious how low of a standard this is, and what we accept. Thankfully these are video games, and nothing of actual importance. Most people ask for a low end on bullshit and some honesty, not Cover Your Ass.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I should clarify. All my comments meant was that it was nice to see a reviewer not succumb to the "peer review" process. My sheep comment merely referenced that, and "integrity" was probably the wrong word. It was not a reference to money hats as much as a reference to "this guy put his own opinion down and didn't let anyone else do shit about it." It's rare to see that in an age of PEER REVIEWS and removing and reuploading scores and all that jazz.

On a side note regarding what garners certain scores, maybe the difference lies in how we personally rate things. Some of us might give more of a crap for the technical bits, some of us might look more at the overall experience. This is part of the problem, I think, with how we digest these reviews. If the person writing them doesn't fall into the same sort of mindset, we tend to lawl a tad too much.

Considering how much hate I have for organized reviews in general, it should also be noted I don't particularily AGREE with the 8.7. Just mentioning it was nice to see someone buck the trend for once.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I think we're at crossed purposes here Rotor, because I agree that everyone giving GTA IV perfect scores is bullshit. My point was, and still is, that to take a score like 10/10 to mean perfection is silly because nothing will ever be perfect. By that merit, I concede that giving a game 10.0 or 100% is unnecessary and probably does imply a game should be practically perfect.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I don't disagree. Skills put it better than I could, my issue has always been with the professional critics, not the game. However I feel about it is irrelevant, I think we all concede to what is good about GTAIV and what isn't for the most part.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Rotorblade

EGM already having a disclaimer in place, they certainly felt their review would be controversial enough to merit a handful of words regarding why they were rating the game as 10/10.

I'm not taking a side on this either way, but I just wanted to clarify: Are you talking about IGN? Because EGM doesn't even use a 10 point scale, and even if you tried to translate their scale to a 10 point scale, an A+, A+, and an A does not equal a 10.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?