Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

GTA V is a major disappointment

209 replies to this topic
Fail_At_GTA
  • Fail_At_GTA

    Actually awesome at GTA

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 May 2012

#121

Posted 04 November 2013 - 02:36 AM

The campaign was mildly disappointed and the Online is extremely disappointing.  Prior to the release, I was playing GTA 4 every day for a couple hours.  I was one of those people who thought they'd be playing GTA 5 non-stop for years.  Well, over the past 2 weeks, I've play GTA for a combined total of maybe 3 hours.  Rockstar just over hyped it and let us down.  Its not at all what Rockstar made it sound like it was going to be.  Due to the massive disappointment, I cant even play it anymore.


Thebull94
  • Thebull94

    Mack Pimp

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2013

#122

Posted 04 November 2013 - 02:38 AM

 

For f*ck sake.

 

This game is a great game worth the money. 

 

It however compared to previous GTA games. Is a disappointment.

 

Main complaints:

 

-Focus on MP which imo is already boring as hell

 

-Story is disgustingly shorter compared to previous GTA games (even the liberty and vice city stories...)

 

-Main characters are pretty damn weak imo. Do not get me wrong there voice acting was on point but they just do not have as much depth as people 'like to believe'. Trevor is a nutjob and Michael is a moany sarcastic bitch. Franklin is the most passive GTA character who tbh does not even feel like a main character,

 

Bottom line this game is overrated as hell (not as much as IV but still)

 

No doubt the majority of reviewers were paid.

 

However what the game has to offer (the few good story missions), (the side missions and scenery etc are all great) were pretty well done. 

 

Now come at me fanboys, I have most likely angered you all,

You were right, and made good points, up until you went to: "No doubt the majority of reviewers were paid."

 

Oh, really? I'd love to see your evidence on this. I mean, it's impossible that they liked the game, and rated it highly because they liked it, right?

 

 

You want evidence? That I cannot provide. Hence the fact it was my opinion.

 

However this seems quite intriguing.

 

Now lets take GTA IV for example.

 

GTA IV metacritic (360) which is essentially the 'critics' (reviewers such as IGN) scores: 98/100

 

Now the USER score is 97...... Jokes it f*cking 7.9 (79). Thats pretty interesting do you agree? Now lets look at GTA V shall we?

 

GTA V metacritic (360) is 97

GTA  V user critic 8.0 (80)

 

Strange huh? The reviewers seem to all conveniently believe GTA IV is the best game of all time (going by statistics) which alone is lol worthy. However the Users seem to deem it as 'average / good'.

 

More or less the same story with GTA V.

 

Ill let you take that in for a moment :)


Geralt of Rivia
  • Geralt of Rivia

    Gwent Master

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2012
  • United-States
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#123

Posted 04 November 2013 - 02:40 AM Edited by TheMasterfocker, 04 November 2013 - 02:46 AM.

redx:

 

That was before the game released. After the game released, I sent you the link that said PS3 looked better (ground textures).

 

Before release, of course I fought you about it. You were spewing bullsh*t. The PS3 looks better with its ground. That's it. That's not much of an advantage, and no reason to show one version over another. And even then, the trailers and screenshots looked better than both the PS3 and 360 versions, so it didn't even matter.

 

I love how you still use that though. You still use that old, outdated argument that means NOTHING now, because it's all you have.

 

When are you gonna let go of the past and admit you know nothing?

 

TheBull94:

 

"You want evidence? That I cannot provide. Hence the fact it was my opinion."

 

You didn't say it like it was your opinion. Saying "No doubt the majority of reviewers were paid." is saying it as fact.

 

And you can't use metacritic to try and prove your point. It's so lacking and inconsistent it's laughable. A lot of the GTA 5 metacritic scores are 0 with comments of "WTF NO PC VERSION!!!", and the 4 ones are the same thing, but instead of their being no PC version, it's the PC version being a bad port and releasing so much later than consoles.

 

Plus, there's so many different factors to take into account, it's not credible. It's like trying to use Wikipedia as a source for a paper. If you dig deep, you can find truth in it and credibility, but the whole thing overall is unreliable.


Capricornus
  • Capricornus

    R.I.P Zee -_-

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2005

#124

Posted 04 November 2013 - 02:42 AM

I always welcome the opinions of others, whether its positive or negative. However, the author of the article calling GTA V a "complete and utter flop" is a damn joke. Sounds like someone who expected too much. The product has made over a billion dollars for its respective company. It did its job in that aspect. Definitely not a flop. I wouldn't be surprised if someone from this website wrote the article. 

  • G.S.T and DeafMetal like this

quechus13
  • quechus13

    Boss

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2008
  • None

#125

Posted 04 November 2013 - 02:42 AM

You know what's funny?

Most of the people that played GTA V never finished it completely.

Seriously have you guys done 100% without downloading a save game?

I did.


ExtremoMania
  • ExtremoMania

    Just a dose of metal everyday

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2012
  • Philippines

#126

Posted 04 November 2013 - 02:46 AM Edited by ExtremoMania, 04 November 2013 - 02:48 AM.

There has been what, a million thread of this complaints already. And it seems that most of your complaints only regard about the physics and features of the game both SP and MP which has been discussed to many times already. OP I suggest you try to do a search a bit or look at the pinned topics that there is a "disappointment thread" waiting for you.


Thebull94
  • Thebull94

    Mack Pimp

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2013

#127

Posted 04 November 2013 - 02:47 AM Edited by Thebull94, 04 November 2013 - 02:50 AM.

redx:

 

That was before the game released. After the game released, I sent you the link that said PS3 looked better (ground textures).

 

Before release, of course I fought you about it. You were spewing bullsh*t. The PS3 looks better with its ground. That's it. That's not much of an advantage, and no reason to show one version over another. And even then, the trailers and screenshots looked better than both the PS3 and 360 versions, so it didn't even matter.

 

I love how you still use that though. You still use that old, outdated argument that means NOTHING now, because it's all you have.

 

When are you gonna let go of the past and admit you know nothing?

 

TheBull94:

 

"You want evidence? That I cannot provide. Hence the fact it was my opinion."

 

You didn't say it like it was your opinion. Saying "No doubt the majority of reviewers were paid." is saying it as fact.

 

And you can't use metacritic to try and prove your point. It's so lacking and inconsistent it's laughable. A lot of the GTA 5 metacritic scores are 0 with comments of "WTF NO PC VERSION!!!", and the 4 ones are the same thing, but instead of their being no PC version, it's the PC version being a bad port and releasing so much later than consoles.

 

Plus, there's so many different factors to take into account, it's not credible. It's like trying to use Wikipedia as a source for a paper. If you dig deep, you can find truth in it and credibility, but the whole thing overall is unreliable.

 

 

Saying the reviewers were no doubt paid is pretty much fact regardless of how you take it because corporations like IGN get paid for reviewing games. Your logic is flawed. Albiet I did word it poorly. 

 

 

Seriously are you that foolish to believe R* who spent over a 100 million in advertising their game would not pay reviewers to rate there game highly risking people being put off by possible low scores? Are you that blind? Answer this im curious and cereal.

 

Also the Metacritic is valid. Go get another game (TLoU) or previous GTA games ( San Andreas) there user score does not stray that far away from the Meta critic despite the troll reviews,


MindCorrupt
  • MindCorrupt

    iCorrupt

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2003

#128

Posted 04 November 2013 - 02:51 AM

 
No doubt the majority of reviewers were paid.
 


Hate to break it to you mate but if you have absolutely zero proof then there is doubt.

Thebull94
  • Thebull94

    Mack Pimp

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2013

#129

Posted 04 November 2013 - 02:52 AM

 

 
No doubt the majority of reviewers were paid.
 


Hate to break it to you mate but if you have absolutely zero proof then there is doubt.

 

 

Like I said its pretty much fact that companies like IGN, gamespot etc are paid to review games as its there job. However in my opinion they were paid to rate the game (as with GTA IV) higher than it deserves.

 

Also read my previous post and answer the question I brought up.


sSiL3NZz
  • sSiL3NZz

    Hellooo

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jun 2012

#130

Posted 04 November 2013 - 02:53 AM

it was very different, i'll give you that. but it's as good as it gets on current gen...


Geralt of Rivia
  • Geralt of Rivia

    Gwent Master

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2012
  • United-States
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#131

Posted 04 November 2013 - 02:54 AM

 

redx:

 

That was before the game released. After the game released, I sent you the link that said PS3 looked better (ground textures).

 

Before release, of course I fought you about it. You were spewing bullsh*t. The PS3 looks better with its ground. That's it. That's not much of an advantage, and no reason to show one version over another. And even then, the trailers and screenshots looked better than both the PS3 and 360 versions, so it didn't even matter.

 

I love how you still use that though. You still use that old, outdated argument that means NOTHING now, because it's all you have.

 

When are you gonna let go of the past and admit you know nothing?

 

TheBull94:

 

"You want evidence? That I cannot provide. Hence the fact it was my opinion."

 

You didn't say it like it was your opinion. Saying "No doubt the majority of reviewers were paid." is saying it as fact.

 

And you can't use metacritic to try and prove your point. It's so lacking and inconsistent it's laughable. A lot of the GTA 5 metacritic scores are 0 with comments of "WTF NO PC VERSION!!!", and the 4 ones are the same thing, but instead of their being no PC version, it's the PC version being a bad port and releasing so much later than consoles.

 

Plus, there's so many different factors to take into account, it's not credible. It's like trying to use Wikipedia as a source for a paper. If you dig deep, you can find truth in it and credibility, but the whole thing overall is unreliable.

 

 

Saying the reviewers were no doubt paid is pretty much fact regardless of how you take it because corporations like IGN get paid for reviewing games. Your logic is flawed.

 

 

Seriously are you that foolish to believe R* who spent over a 100 million in advertising their game would not pay reviewers to rate there game highly risking people being put off by possible low scores? Are you that blind? Answer this im curious and cereal.

 

Wait...what?

 

First you said it was your opinion, and now you're saying it's fact? Alrighty then...

 

How is my logic flawed? You're the one going back and forth between opinion and fact. I never even had logic...

 

Am I that foolish? I dunno, anything is possible. But until you can prove that R* paid reviewers, I can believe what I want, since there's nothing to sway my opinion. I mean, R* has gotten some bad reviews (At least 1), why weren't they paid?

 

Am I blind for thinking that R* didn't pay reviewers, because there's literally NO evidence to say they did? No. Not at all.


Thebull94
  • Thebull94

    Mack Pimp

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2013

#132

Posted 04 November 2013 - 03:00 AM

 

 

redx:

 

That was before the game released. After the game released, I sent you the link that said PS3 looked better (ground textures).

 

Before release, of course I fought you about it. You were spewing bullsh*t. The PS3 looks better with its ground. That's it. That's not much of an advantage, and no reason to show one version over another. And even then, the trailers and screenshots looked better than both the PS3 and 360 versions, so it didn't even matter.

 

I love how you still use that though. You still use that old, outdated argument that means NOTHING now, because it's all you have.

 

When are you gonna let go of the past and admit you know nothing?

 

TheBull94:

 

"You want evidence? That I cannot provide. Hence the fact it was my opinion."

 

You didn't say it like it was your opinion. Saying "No doubt the majority of reviewers were paid." is saying it as fact.

 

And you can't use metacritic to try and prove your point. It's so lacking and inconsistent it's laughable. A lot of the GTA 5 metacritic scores are 0 with comments of "WTF NO PC VERSION!!!", and the 4 ones are the same thing, but instead of their being no PC version, it's the PC version being a bad port and releasing so much later than consoles.

 

Plus, there's so many different factors to take into account, it's not credible. It's like trying to use Wikipedia as a source for a paper. If you dig deep, you can find truth in it and credibility, but the whole thing overall is unreliable.

 

 

Saying the reviewers were no doubt paid is pretty much fact regardless of how you take it because corporations like IGN get paid for reviewing games. Your logic is flawed.

 

 

Seriously are you that foolish to believe R* who spent over a 100 million in advertising their game would not pay reviewers to rate there game highly risking people being put off by possible low scores? Are you that blind? Answer this im curious and cereal.

 

Wait...what?

 

First you said it was your opinion, and now you're saying it's fact? Alrighty then...

 

How is my logic flawed? You're the one going back and forth between opinion and fact. I never even had logic...

 

Am I that foolish? I dunno, anything is possible. But until you can prove that R* paid reviewers, I can believe what I want, since there's nothing to sway my opinion. I mean, R* has gotten some bad reviews (At least 1), why weren't they paid?

 

Am I blind for thinking that R* didn't pay reviewers, because there's literally NO evidence to say they did? No. Not at all.

 

I suggest you learn to read buddy, listen here guy, I have something to say to you friend.

 

Fact: IGN and Gamespot (for examplezors) get paid to review games.

 

Opinion (mine): They were paid to review the game highly.

 

That make sense?

 

Listen here guy, the reason your blind is because just because there is no proof of something does not make it seem untrue.

 

My words had no fact but had a f*ck ton of logic behind it. Hence why I am debating why this game was a disappointment. Should all off us cease to argue right now seeing as we cannot voice our opinions unless they are deemed fact by some almighty power?

 

No. R* risking losing customers (profit) by not paying companies to rate their game highly seems illogical and retarded due to them spending over 100 million dollars in advertising (alone) to make the game seem like it will be a success. What is part of advertising? Reviews.

 

I am curious as to why you feel people cannot voice their opinions unless they are deemed fact despite the level of logic behind them?


Officer Ronson
  • Officer Ronson

    ''Cool it, assholes''

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2011
  • United-States

#133

Posted 04 November 2013 - 03:02 AM

I love this place, 93% of the threads made are about how people din't get San Andreas II. Like if Mr. Johnson or Miss Catalina Miss'm were good enough.

  • TheFoxRiverFugitive likes this

MindCorrupt
  • MindCorrupt

    iCorrupt

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2003

#134

Posted 04 November 2013 - 03:02 AM

No doubt the majority of reviewers were paid.


Hate to break it to you mate but if you have absolutely zero proof then there is doubt.
 
Like I said its pretty much fact that companies like IGN, gamespot etc are paid to review games as its there job. However in my opinion they were paid to rate the game (as with GTA IV) higher than it deserves.
 
Also read my previous post and answer the question I brought up.

I'm sure that some of the larger sites take money for reviewing (IGN have been accused several times, but do people really take their reviews seriously still?) but saying the majority of reviewers were paid off is nothing but speculation.

Thebull94
  • Thebull94

    Mack Pimp

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2013

#135

Posted 04 November 2013 - 03:05 AM

 

 

 

No doubt the majority of reviewers were paid.


Hate to break it to you mate but if you have absolutely zero proof then there is doubt.
 
Like I said its pretty much fact that companies like IGN, gamespot etc are paid to review games as its there job. However in my opinion they were paid to rate the game (as with GTA IV) higher than it deserves.
 
Also read my previous post and answer the question I brought up.

I'm sure that some of the larger sites take money for reviewing (IGN have been accused several times, but do people really take their reviews seriously still?) but saying the majority of reviewers were paid off is nothing but speculation.

 

It is speculation, like 90% of the things on this forum. So why is that point of my original post being picked it despite it being my opinion? In my original post did I use the word 'fact'? No I said 

 

"No doubt the reviewers were paid"

 

Where did I use the word fact in it? I see it as obvious not factual. However it is a fact that companies get PAID to review games. 

 

Also I do not care about reviews, read my original post, you would see I was not focusing on any reviews apart from that 'one liner' that has everyone sweating at the palms.


The-San-Andreas-man
  • The-San-Andreas-man

    Certified Furry!

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2009

#136

Posted 04 November 2013 - 03:10 AM

There's an entire thread for this ffs. Are you people blind?

 

Some things in this game were disappointing, yes. But why should I care when even more of it was amazing? Focusing on the negatives get's you nowhere, and aimlessly complaining get's you even less somewhere.

  • G.S.T and DeafMetal like this

Proletariat
  • Proletariat

    Vice City ain't a Nice City

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Aug 2013

#137

Posted 04 November 2013 - 03:10 AM

So, one of the highest rated games ever has let the so called "hardcore GTA loyalists" disapointed because they don't understand console limitations? 

 

FIRST OF ALL TO  ALL THE f*ckERS WHO ARE SAYING GTA V IS A LET DOWN, HEAR THIS YOU FOOLS

 

ROCKSTAR DID NOT OVER HYPE THE GAME. THEY DELIVERED WHATEVER THEY PROMISED. YOU f*ckERS LOOKED INTO THEIR WORDS TOO MUCH AND OVERHYPED EVERYTHING. IF YOU FIND GTA V DISAPPOINTING BECAUSE IT DIDN'T MEET YOUR FANTASICAL EXPECTATIONS, THEN YOU DON'T DESERVE TO PLAY GTA V.

 

PLUS, USER STATS DON'T MEAN sh*t. MOST PEOPLE AREN'T WELL QUALIFIED TO JUDGE A GAME. I AM ONE OF THOS PEOPLE. I CAN SAY A GAME IS GOOD OR BAD, BUT THAT'S BOUT IT. GETTING 97 ON METACRITIC IS NO JOKE.

 

AGAIN, YOU GUYS OVERHYPED IT OO MUCH, WERE TOO EXCITED BY THE TRAILERS AND SCREENSHOTS, READ WAY TOO MUCH INTO ROCKSTAR'S STATEMENTS, AND EXPECTED WAY TOO MUCH OUT OF ONE VIDEO GAME. 

 

AND SHUT THE f*ck UP ABOUT THE ONLINE THING OKAY? DON'T PLAY ONLINE IN THE FIRST-PLACE. YOU GUYS SHOULD KNOW BETTER, EVERY COMPANY SQUEEZES OUT MONEY FROM THE FANBASE THOUGH ONLINE. JUST AVOID THAT sh*t AND PLAY SINGLE-PLAYER ONLY. ONLINE STUF NOT IN SINGLE-PLAYER LIKE YOU WANTED? GO MAKE YOUR OWN DAMN GAME THEN.

  • DeafMetal likes this

Geralt of Rivia
  • Geralt of Rivia

    Gwent Master

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2012
  • United-States
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#138

Posted 04 November 2013 - 03:12 AM

 

 

 

redx:

 

That was before the game released. After the game released, I sent you the link that said PS3 looked better (ground textures).

 

Before release, of course I fought you about it. You were spewing bullsh*t. The PS3 looks better with its ground. That's it. That's not much of an advantage, and no reason to show one version over another. And even then, the trailers and screenshots looked better than both the PS3 and 360 versions, so it didn't even matter.

 

I love how you still use that though. You still use that old, outdated argument that means NOTHING now, because it's all you have.

 

When are you gonna let go of the past and admit you know nothing?

 

TheBull94:

 

"You want evidence? That I cannot provide. Hence the fact it was my opinion."

 

You didn't say it like it was your opinion. Saying "No doubt the majority of reviewers were paid." is saying it as fact.

 

And you can't use metacritic to try and prove your point. It's so lacking and inconsistent it's laughable. A lot of the GTA 5 metacritic scores are 0 with comments of "WTF NO PC VERSION!!!", and the 4 ones are the same thing, but instead of their being no PC version, it's the PC version being a bad port and releasing so much later than consoles.

 

Plus, there's so many different factors to take into account, it's not credible. It's like trying to use Wikipedia as a source for a paper. If you dig deep, you can find truth in it and credibility, but the whole thing overall is unreliable.

 

 

Saying the reviewers were no doubt paid is pretty much fact regardless of how you take it because corporations like IGN get paid for reviewing games. Your logic is flawed.

 

 

Seriously are you that foolish to believe R* who spent over a 100 million in advertising their game would not pay reviewers to rate there game highly risking people being put off by possible low scores? Are you that blind? Answer this im curious and cereal.

 

Wait...what?

 

First you said it was your opinion, and now you're saying it's fact? Alrighty then...

 

How is my logic flawed? You're the one going back and forth between opinion and fact. I never even had logic...

 

Am I that foolish? I dunno, anything is possible. But until you can prove that R* paid reviewers, I can believe what I want, since there's nothing to sway my opinion. I mean, R* has gotten some bad reviews (At least 1), why weren't they paid?

 

Am I blind for thinking that R* didn't pay reviewers, because there's literally NO evidence to say they did? No. Not at all.

 

I suggest you learn to read buddy, listen here guy, I have something to say to you friend.

 

Fact: IGN and Gamespot (for examplezors) get paid to review games.

 

Opinion (mine): They were paid to review the game highly.

 

That make sense?

 

Listen here guy, the reason your blind is because just because there is no proof of something does not make it seem untrue.

 

My words had no fact but had a f*ck ton of logic behind it. Hence why I am debating why this game was a disappointment. Should all off us cease to argue right now seeing as we cannot voice our opinions unless they are deemed fact by some almighty power?

 

No. R* risking losing customers (profit) by not paying companies to rate their game highly seems illogical and retarded due to them spending over 100 million dollars in advertising (alone) to make the game seem like it will be a success. What is part of advertising? Reviews.

 

I am curious as to why you feel people cannot voice their opinions unless they are deemed fact despite the level of logic behind them?

 

"Fact: IGN and Gamespot (for examplezors) get paid to review games." "Opinion (mine): They were paid to review the game highly."

 

That makes more sense. But, please tell me, how is that fact? I'd love to see the evidence of that being fact.

 

"Listen here guy, the reason your blind is because just because there is no proof of something does not make it seem untrue."

 

It doesn't matter if it SEEMS untrue. If there's no evidence, you can't prove it's true. If you go into a court, saying that because 2 guys fought the night before one of the guy's murder, if there's no evidence of the one guy killing the other guy, you can't prove it. You'll be out of court in 5 minutes with a lost case.

 

"My words had no fact but had a f*ck ton of logic behind it"

 

Lolololol f*ckton of logic behind it? You mean Metacritic scores that can't be used credibly because of there being too many variables to be taken into account? Oh yeah, that's a f*ckton!

 

"Should all off us cease to argue right now seeing as we cannot voice our opinions unless they are deemed fact by some almighty power?"

 

No, because opinions are one thing. Saying something is fact, and trying to use logic that doesn't work to prove it...it doesn't work. If you say something as fact, you need solid proof. Don't have it? It's not fact. Period. There's no arguing against it.

 

Let's say this. Reviewers rating the game highly because they like the game has just as much merit as you saying that they get paid.

 

Prove R* paid them, and I'll start taking what you say seriously.


The_Fluffmeister
  • The_Fluffmeister

    Professional Equine

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2013

#139

Posted 04 November 2013 - 03:12 AM Edited by The_Fluffmeister, 04 November 2013 - 03:15 AM.

This thread is absolute cancer. I haven't played GTA for YEARS and I finally came back to it for GTA V, and I have to say, this game is the best game I've ever played. While some things are disappointing, those small things don't take away from the overall experience at all. I don't give a flying f*ck about the ending of the story (hell, I loved killing off Trevor), or the lack of interiors, or how plain the underwater portion of the map is, I got this game for running people over in pimpin' cars, doing races, enjoying the story, doing heists, and having fun with my friends, and that's exactly what I got (and then some.) And while I admit R*'s antics with GTA Online are a little annoying, all of you people need to stop complaining and be happy with this masterpiece.

  • G.S.T likes this

Red XIII
  • Red XIII

    British and Proud!

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2012

#140

Posted 04 November 2013 - 03:16 AM Edited by Red XIII, 04 November 2013 - 03:21 AM.

 

It's true though. GTA fanboys saying it's the best. Jesus, with hundreds of millions of dollars, hundreds of workers and 5+ years to make it, it's just dreadful.

The people with brains know the game isn't that good while the fanboys are trying to believe the game is good while its the same formula we've seen for years. 

 

 

Oh dear lord you are stupid (Not a fanboy because GTAV really is a big disappointment but that is my opinion)

 

What do you mean same formula? errm 3 characters, one city and totally different to GTAIV in everyway possible so how could it be the same formula?

 

I can't take you seriously anymore, I'm convinced you are just a troll, perhaps trying to be the next zee? If you are being serious I feel really sorry for you. I actually find you genuinely funny because of your stupidity(I really hope you are a troll for your own sake)


Thebull94
  • Thebull94

    Mack Pimp

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2013

#141

Posted 04 November 2013 - 03:20 AM

 

 

 

 

redx:

 

That was before the game released. After the game released, I sent you the link that said PS3 looked better (ground textures).

 

Before release, of course I fought you about it. You were spewing bullsh*t. The PS3 looks better with its ground. That's it. That's not much of an advantage, and no reason to show one version over another. And even then, the trailers and screenshots looked better than both the PS3 and 360 versions, so it didn't even matter.

 

I love how you still use that though. You still use that old, outdated argument that means NOTHING now, because it's all you have.

 

When are you gonna let go of the past and admit you know nothing?

 

TheBull94:

 

"You want evidence? That I cannot provide. Hence the fact it was my opinion."

 

You didn't say it like it was your opinion. Saying "No doubt the majority of reviewers were paid." is saying it as fact.

 

And you can't use metacritic to try and prove your point. It's so lacking and inconsistent it's laughable. A lot of the GTA 5 metacritic scores are 0 with comments of "WTF NO PC VERSION!!!", and the 4 ones are the same thing, but instead of their being no PC version, it's the PC version being a bad port and releasing so much later than consoles.

 

Plus, there's so many different factors to take into account, it's not credible. It's like trying to use Wikipedia as a source for a paper. If you dig deep, you can find truth in it and credibility, but the whole thing overall is unreliable.

 

 

Saying the reviewers were no doubt paid is pretty much fact regardless of how you take it because corporations like IGN get paid for reviewing games. Your logic is flawed.

 

 

Seriously are you that foolish to believe R* who spent over a 100 million in advertising their game would not pay reviewers to rate there game highly risking people being put off by possible low scores? Are you that blind? Answer this im curious and cereal.

 

Wait...what?

 

First you said it was your opinion, and now you're saying it's fact? Alrighty then...

 

How is my logic flawed? You're the one going back and forth between opinion and fact. I never even had logic...

 

Am I that foolish? I dunno, anything is possible. But until you can prove that R* paid reviewers, I can believe what I want, since there's nothing to sway my opinion. I mean, R* has gotten some bad reviews (At least 1), why weren't they paid?

 

Am I blind for thinking that R* didn't pay reviewers, because there's literally NO evidence to say they did? No. Not at all.

 

I suggest you learn to read buddy, listen here guy, I have something to say to you friend.

 

Fact: IGN and Gamespot (for examplezors) get paid to review games.

 

Opinion (mine): They were paid to review the game highly.

 

That make sense?

 

Listen here guy, the reason your blind is because just because there is no proof of something does not make it seem untrue.

 

My words had no fact but had a f*ck ton of logic behind it. Hence why I am debating why this game was a disappointment. Should all off us cease to argue right now seeing as we cannot voice our opinions unless they are deemed fact by some almighty power?

 

No. R* risking losing customers (profit) by not paying companies to rate their game highly seems illogical and retarded due to them spending over 100 million dollars in advertising (alone) to make the game seem like it will be a success. What is part of advertising? Reviews.

 

I am curious as to why you feel people cannot voice their opinions unless they are deemed fact despite the level of logic behind them?

 

"Fact: IGN and Gamespot (for examplezors) get paid to review games." "Opinion (mine): They were paid to review the game highly."

 

That makes more sense. But, please tell me, how is that fact? I'd love to see the evidence of that being fact.

 

"Listen here guy, the reason your blind is because just because there is no proof of something does not make it seem untrue."

 

It doesn't matter if it SEEMS untrue. If there's no evidence, you can't prove it's true. If you go into a court, saying that because 2 guys fought the night before one of the guy's murder, if there's no evidence of the one guy killing the other guy, you can't prove it. You'll be out of court in 5 minutes with a lost case.

 

"My words had no fact but had a f*ck ton of logic behind it"

 

Lolololol f*ckton of logic behind it? You mean Metacritic scores that can't be used credibly because of there being too many variables to be taken into account? Oh yeah, that's a f*ckton!

 

"Should all off us cease to argue right now seeing as we cannot voice our opinions unless they are deemed fact by some almighty power?"

 

No, because opinions are one thing. Saying something is fact, and trying to use logic that doesn't work to prove it...it doesn't work. If you say something as fact, you need solid proof. Don't have it? It's not fact. Period. There's no arguing against it.

 

Let's say this. Reviewers rating the game highly because they like the game has just as much merit as you saying that they get paid.

 

Prove R* paid them, and I'll start taking what you say seriously.

 

 

 

1. Woah wait a minute you want proof that IGN a f*cking business get paid to review games? Do you think R* sends them an early copy and IGN review it for fun? Gtfo with that retarded BS brah. 

2. Are you now comparing this debate to a f*cking court room?

3. Prove me wrong by providing me other games on Meta critic that has its Meta critic score much higher than its User Score like GTA IV and GTA V does and then I will admit it does not have credibility. But until then logically yeah it seems more than a f*cking coincidence you bafoon.

4. When did I use the word fact in my original post? You interpreted that I meant it as fact just because you view something as something does not mean that is how it was intended. 


The Odyssey
  • The Odyssey

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2012
  • Australia

#142

Posted 04 November 2013 - 03:29 AM Edited by The Odyssey, 04 November 2013 - 03:31 AM.


Stop it! Stop having opinions dammit!

Stop liking what I don't like! 
 
I can't take you seriously anymore, I'm convinced you are just a troll, perhaps trying to be the next zee? If you are being serious I feel really sorry for you. I actually find you genuinely funny because of your stupidity(I really hope you are a troll for your own sake)
I genuinely believe he is a troll. There is nobody I have ever met that can't accept people's opinions before. Not even Rockstarfanboy is this oblivious to other people's opinions.
  • TheFoxRiverFugitive likes this

Geralt of Rivia
  • Geralt of Rivia

    Gwent Master

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2012
  • United-States
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#143

Posted 04 November 2013 - 03:29 AM Edited by TheMasterfocker, 04 November 2013 - 03:31 AM.

 

 

 

 

 

redx:

 

That was before the game released. After the game released, I sent you the link that said PS3 looked better (ground textures).

 

Before release, of course I fought you about it. You were spewing bullsh*t. The PS3 looks better with its ground. That's it. That's not much of an advantage, and no reason to show one version over another. And even then, the trailers and screenshots looked better than both the PS3 and 360 versions, so it didn't even matter.

 

I love how you still use that though. You still use that old, outdated argument that means NOTHING now, because it's all you have.

 

When are you gonna let go of the past and admit you know nothing?

 

TheBull94:

 

"You want evidence? That I cannot provide. Hence the fact it was my opinion."

 

You didn't say it like it was your opinion. Saying "No doubt the majority of reviewers were paid." is saying it as fact.

 

And you can't use metacritic to try and prove your point. It's so lacking and inconsistent it's laughable. A lot of the GTA 5 metacritic scores are 0 with comments of "WTF NO PC VERSION!!!", and the 4 ones are the same thing, but instead of their being no PC version, it's the PC version being a bad port and releasing so much later than consoles.

 

Plus, there's so many different factors to take into account, it's not credible. It's like trying to use Wikipedia as a source for a paper. If you dig deep, you can find truth in it and credibility, but the whole thing overall is unreliable.

 

 

Saying the reviewers were no doubt paid is pretty much fact regardless of how you take it because corporations like IGN get paid for reviewing games. Your logic is flawed.

 

 

Seriously are you that foolish to believe R* who spent over a 100 million in advertising their game would not pay reviewers to rate there game highly risking people being put off by possible low scores? Are you that blind? Answer this im curious and cereal.

 

Wait...what?

 

First you said it was your opinion, and now you're saying it's fact? Alrighty then...

 

How is my logic flawed? You're the one going back and forth between opinion and fact. I never even had logic...

 

Am I that foolish? I dunno, anything is possible. But until you can prove that R* paid reviewers, I can believe what I want, since there's nothing to sway my opinion. I mean, R* has gotten some bad reviews (At least 1), why weren't they paid?

 

Am I blind for thinking that R* didn't pay reviewers, because there's literally NO evidence to say they did? No. Not at all.

 

I suggest you learn to read buddy, listen here guy, I have something to say to you friend.

 

Fact: IGN and Gamespot (for examplezors) get paid to review games.

 

Opinion (mine): They were paid to review the game highly.

 

That make sense?

 

Listen here guy, the reason your blind is because just because there is no proof of something does not make it seem untrue.

 

My words had no fact but had a f*ck ton of logic behind it. Hence why I am debating why this game was a disappointment. Should all off us cease to argue right now seeing as we cannot voice our opinions unless they are deemed fact by some almighty power?

 

No. R* risking losing customers (profit) by not paying companies to rate their game highly seems illogical and retarded due to them spending over 100 million dollars in advertising (alone) to make the game seem like it will be a success. What is part of advertising? Reviews.

 

I am curious as to why you feel people cannot voice their opinions unless they are deemed fact despite the level of logic behind them?

 

"Fact: IGN and Gamespot (for examplezors) get paid to review games." "Opinion (mine): They were paid to review the game highly."

 

That makes more sense. But, please tell me, how is that fact? I'd love to see the evidence of that being fact.

 

"Listen here guy, the reason your blind is because just because there is no proof of something does not make it seem untrue."

 

It doesn't matter if it SEEMS untrue. If there's no evidence, you can't prove it's true. If you go into a court, saying that because 2 guys fought the night before one of the guy's murder, if there's no evidence of the one guy killing the other guy, you can't prove it. You'll be out of court in 5 minutes with a lost case.

 

"My words had no fact but had a f*ck ton of logic behind it"

 

Lolololol f*ckton of logic behind it? You mean Metacritic scores that can't be used credibly because of there being too many variables to be taken into account? Oh yeah, that's a f*ckton!

 

"Should all off us cease to argue right now seeing as we cannot voice our opinions unless they are deemed fact by some almighty power?"

 

No, because opinions are one thing. Saying something is fact, and trying to use logic that doesn't work to prove it...it doesn't work. If you say something as fact, you need solid proof. Don't have it? It's not fact. Period. There's no arguing against it.

 

Let's say this. Reviewers rating the game highly because they like the game has just as much merit as you saying that they get paid.

 

Prove R* paid them, and I'll start taking what you say seriously.

 

 

 

1. Woah wait a minute you want proof that IGN a f*cking business get paid to review games? Do you think R* sends them an early copy and IGN review it for fun? Gtfo with that retarded BS brah. 

2. Are you now comparing this debate to a f*cking court room?

3. Prove me wrong by providing me other games on Meta critic that has its Meta critic score much higher than its User Score like GTA IV and GTA V does and then I will admit it does not have credibility. But until then logically yeah it seems more than a f*cking coincidence you bafoon.

4. When did I use the word fact in my original post? You interpreted that I meant it as fact just because you view something as something does not mean that is how it was intended. 

 

1. Guess what? Businesses can make money without getting paid for reviews. I know, it's shocking, but it's true! And again, you try the "This is logical, so it must be true" approach. Once again, prove to me R* paid IGN. No proof? Then shut the f*ck up, because you can't prove it. No matter how much you spew that it "makes sense", unless you can prove it, it doesn't matter.

 

2. Yes, because it's the same exact premise. Can't prove it? It doesn't work.

 

3. Oh, let's see...

 

Cod MW2, Cod Black Ops, CoD MW3, and CoD Black Ops 2. One of the biggest and best selling franchises out there,  the user metacritic is always below 5. Reaching as low as 3.3. Meanwhile, reviewer scores are great. Hmmm....

 

4. You didn't use the word fact. However, the way you said it insinuated fact.

 

The Odyssey:

 

I believe he's actually just that stupid. A blind fanboy kind of stupid.


Kifflom!
  • Kifflom!

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2013

#144

Posted 04 November 2013 - 03:31 AM

such hate

wow

much asshuls

such thread


Thebull94
  • Thebull94

    Mack Pimp

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2013

#145

Posted 04 November 2013 - 03:40 AM Edited by Thebull94, 04 November 2013 - 03:43 AM.

 

 

 

 

 

 

redx:

 

That was before the game released. After the game released, I sent you the link that said PS3 looked better (ground textures).

 

Before release, of course I fought you about it. You were spewing bullsh*t. The PS3 looks better with its ground. That's it. That's not much of an advantage, and no reason to show one version over another. And even then, the trailers and screenshots looked better than both the PS3 and 360 versions, so it didn't even matter.

 

I love how you still use that though. You still use that old, outdated argument that means NOTHING now, because it's all you have.

 

When are you gonna let go of the past and admit you know nothing?

 

TheBull94:

 

"You want evidence? That I cannot provide. Hence the fact it was my opinion."

 

You didn't say it like it was your opinion. Saying "No doubt the majority of reviewers were paid." is saying it as fact.

 

And you can't use metacritic to try and prove your point. It's so lacking and inconsistent it's laughable. A lot of the GTA 5 metacritic scores are 0 with comments of "WTF NO PC VERSION!!!", and the 4 ones are the same thing, but instead of their being no PC version, it's the PC version being a bad port and releasing so much later than consoles.

 

Plus, there's so many different factors to take into account, it's not credible. It's like trying to use Wikipedia as a source for a paper. If you dig deep, you can find truth in it and credibility, but the whole thing overall is unreliable.

 

 

Saying the reviewers were no doubt paid is pretty much fact regardless of how you take it because corporations like IGN get paid for reviewing games. Your logic is flawed.

 

 

Seriously are you that foolish to believe R* who spent over a 100 million in advertising their game would not pay reviewers to rate there game highly risking people being put off by possible low scores? Are you that blind? Answer this im curious and cereal.

 

Wait...what?

 

First you said it was your opinion, and now you're saying it's fact? Alrighty then...

 

How is my logic flawed? You're the one going back and forth between opinion and fact. I never even had logic...

 

Am I that foolish? I dunno, anything is possible. But until you can prove that R* paid reviewers, I can believe what I want, since there's nothing to sway my opinion. I mean, R* has gotten some bad reviews (At least 1), why weren't they paid?

 

Am I blind for thinking that R* didn't pay reviewers, because there's literally NO evidence to say they did? No. Not at all.

 

I suggest you learn to read buddy, listen here guy, I have something to say to you friend.

 

Fact: IGN and Gamespot (for examplezors) get paid to review games.

 

Opinion (mine): They were paid to review the game highly.

 

That make sense?

 

Listen here guy, the reason your blind is because just because there is no proof of something does not make it seem untrue.

 

My words had no fact but had a f*ck ton of logic behind it. Hence why I am debating why this game was a disappointment. Should all off us cease to argue right now seeing as we cannot voice our opinions unless they are deemed fact by some almighty power?

 

No. R* risking losing customers (profit) by not paying companies to rate their game highly seems illogical and retarded due to them spending over 100 million dollars in advertising (alone) to make the game seem like it will be a success. What is part of advertising? Reviews.

 

I am curious as to why you feel people cannot voice their opinions unless they are deemed fact despite the level of logic behind them?

 

"Fact: IGN and Gamespot (for examplezors) get paid to review games." "Opinion (mine): They were paid to review the game highly."

 

That makes more sense. But, please tell me, how is that fact? I'd love to see the evidence of that being fact.

 

"Listen here guy, the reason your blind is because just because there is no proof of something does not make it seem untrue."

 

It doesn't matter if it SEEMS untrue. If there's no evidence, you can't prove it's true. If you go into a court, saying that because 2 guys fought the night before one of the guy's murder, if there's no evidence of the one guy killing the other guy, you can't prove it. You'll be out of court in 5 minutes with a lost case.

 

"My words had no fact but had a f*ck ton of logic behind it"

 

Lolololol f*ckton of logic behind it? You mean Metacritic scores that can't be used credibly because of there being too many variables to be taken into account? Oh yeah, that's a f*ckton!

 

"Should all off us cease to argue right now seeing as we cannot voice our opinions unless they are deemed fact by some almighty power?"

 

No, because opinions are one thing. Saying something is fact, and trying to use logic that doesn't work to prove it...it doesn't work. If you say something as fact, you need solid proof. Don't have it? It's not fact. Period. There's no arguing against it.

 

Let's say this. Reviewers rating the game highly because they like the game has just as much merit as you saying that they get paid.

 

Prove R* paid them, and I'll start taking what you say seriously.

 

 

 

1. Woah wait a minute you want proof that IGN a f*cking business get paid to review games? Do you think R* sends them an early copy and IGN review it for fun? Gtfo with that retarded BS brah. 

2. Are you now comparing this debate to a f*cking court room?

3. Prove me wrong by providing me other games on Meta critic that has its Meta critic score much higher than its User Score like GTA IV and GTA V does and then I will admit it does not have credibility. But until then logically yeah it seems more than a f*cking coincidence you bafoon.

4. When did I use the word fact in my original post? You interpreted that I meant it as fact just because you view something as something does not mean that is how it was intended. 

 

1. Guess what? Businesses can make money without getting paid for reviews. I know, it's shocking, but it's true! And again, you try the "This is logical, so it must be true" approach. Once again, prove to me R* paid IGN. No proof? Then shut the f*ck up, because you can't prove it. No matter how much you spew that it "makes sense", unless you can prove it, it doesn't matter.

 

2. Yes, because it's the same exact premise. Can't prove it? It doesn't work.

 

3. Oh, let's see...

 

Cod MW2, Cod Black Ops, CoD MW3, and CoD Black Ops 2. One of the biggest and best selling franchises out there,  the user metacritic is always below 5. Reaching as low as 3.3. Meanwhile, reviewer scores are great. Hmmm....

 

4. You didn't use the word fact. However, the way you said it insinuated fact.

 

The Odyssey:

 

I believe he's actually just that stupid. A blind fanboy kind of stupid.

 

 

1. You. Are. f*cking. Retarded. IGN a business. Get games early, to review them so the company can use there reviews to display the high scores (check r* website they display the score) on the games case, trailers (etc). In turn they would have to compensate IGN to be allowed to use that review as advertisement. I find it hilarious how oblivious you are to the world. Do you think. A company would go to work at IGN at specific times (the reviewers) due to it being their job, to review a f*cking game for fun?. Do your own research you incompetent fool.

 

2. No it is not the premise. I stated my opinion you interpreted it as me passing it off as fact, your f*cking problem not mine. This is also a forum I do not need to swear to tell the truth, there is no judge, no lawyers the premise is completely f*cking wrong. Again proves your mental instability.

 

3. Now you have just proven me correct. You had to use KNOWN corpororate sellout titles to prove a point. There have been MANY accusations of COD buying reviews, Activision are KNOWN snakes like EA. Thank you for that. If you disagree essentially you are agreeing that Activision are not money hungry bastards milking the franchise for any possible turnover they could achieve.

 

4. Lol You have just contradicted yourself. You tell me that I cannot pass something off as fact despite the logic behind it yet you logically so insinuated that I passed my opinion off as fact despite me not using the word 'fact'. You used logic to prove a point and in turn you have the f*cking cheek to call me out for it?

 

Gtfo you putrid imbecile.

 

Question: You do know reviews are a forum of advertisement and so if R* wish to use the score to display it on their website (which they have done) they would need to compensate them for it? That is how advertising works. You do not seem to understand that so I will leave you shake your fist at the computer in peace.


redx165
  • redx165

    Making the GTA fanboys dance

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2012
  • None

#146

Posted 04 November 2013 - 03:41 AM

 

 

It's true though. GTA fanboys saying it's the best. Jesus, with hundreds of millions of dollars, hundreds of workers and 5+ years to make it, it's just dreadful.

The people with brains know the game isn't that good while the fanboys are trying to believe the game is good while its the same formula we've seen for years. 

 

 

Oh dear lord you are stupid (Not a fanboy because GTAV really is a big disappointment but that is my opinion)

 

What do you mean same formula? errm 3 characters, one city and totally different to GTAIV in everyway possible so how could it be the same formula?

 

I can't take you seriously anymore, I'm convinced you are just a troll, perhaps trying to be the next zee? If you are being serious I feel really sorry for you. I actually find you genuinely funny because of your stupidity(I really hope you are a troll for your own sake)

 

Go here, shoot them, grab the stuff and lose the cops. ALL MISSIONS are the same. 

 

Just cause you can use 3 characters instead of one doesn't make the formula go away. 


Red XIII
  • Red XIII

    British and Proud!

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2012

#147

Posted 04 November 2013 - 03:43 AM

 

 

 

It's true though. GTA fanboys saying it's the best. Jesus, with hundreds of millions of dollars, hundreds of workers and 5+ years to make it, it's just dreadful.

The people with brains know the game isn't that good while the fanboys are trying to believe the game is good while its the same formula we've seen for years. 

 

 

Oh dear lord you are stupid (Not a fanboy because GTAV really is a big disappointment but that is my opinion)

 

What do you mean same formula? errm 3 characters, one city and totally different to GTAIV in everyway possible so how could it be the same formula?

 

I can't take you seriously anymore, I'm convinced you are just a troll, perhaps trying to be the next zee? If you are being serious I feel really sorry for you. I actually find you genuinely funny because of your stupidity(I really hope you are a troll for your own sake)

 

Go here, shoot them, grab the stuff and lose the cops. ALL MISSIONS are the same. 

 

Just cause you can use 3 characters instead of one doesn't make the formula go away. 

 

 

You ever watched bill and ben the flower pot men? When I read your posts that's the language I hear in my head.


The Odyssey
  • The Odyssey

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2012
  • Australia

#148

Posted 04 November 2013 - 03:51 AM

It's true though. GTA fanboys saying it's the best. Jesus, with hundreds of millions of dollars, hundreds of workers and 5+ years to make it, it's just dreadful.

The people with brains know the game isn't that good while the fanboys are trying to believe the game is good while its the same formula we've seen for years. 
 
Oh dear lord you are stupid (Not a fanboy because GTAV really is a big disappointment but that is my opinion)
 
What do you mean same formula? errm 3 characters, one city and totally different to GTAIV in everyway possible so how could it be the same formula?
 
I can't take you seriously anymore, I'm convinced you are just a troll, perhaps trying to be the next zee? If you are being serious I feel really sorry for you. I actually find you genuinely funny because of your stupidity(I really hope you are a troll for your own sake)
Go here, shoot them, grab the stuff and lose the cops. ALL MISSIONS are the same. 
 
Just cause you can use 3 characters instead of one doesn't make the formula go away. 
Oh dear lord now you're saying the missions are repetitive? Coming from a SA fanboy? Name one story mission in GTA V with the same layout as another one. Go ahead.

spamtackey
  • spamtackey

    Business Socks

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2013

#149

Posted 04 November 2013 - 03:52 AM

 

 

 

 

It's true though. GTA fanboys saying it's the best. Jesus, with hundreds of millions of dollars, hundreds of workers and 5+ years to make it, it's just dreadful.

The people with brains know the game isn't that good while the fanboys are trying to believe the game is good while its the same formula we've seen for years. 
 
Oh dear lord you are stupid (Not a fanboy because GTAV really is a big disappointment but that is my opinion)
 
What do you mean same formula? errm 3 characters, one city and totally different to GTAIV in everyway possible so how could it be the same formula?
 
I can't take you seriously anymore, I'm convinced you are just a troll, perhaps trying to be the next zee? If you are being serious I feel really sorry for you. I actually find you genuinely funny because of your stupidity(I really hope you are a troll for your own sake)
Go here, shoot them, grab the stuff and lose the cops. ALL MISSIONS are the same. 
 
Just cause you can use 3 characters instead of one doesn't make the formula go away. 
Oh dear lord now you're saying the missions are repetitive? Coming from a SA fanboy? Name one story mission in GTA V with the same layout as another one. Go ahead.

 

 

Asking him to name one is kinda stupid because there is at least one...

 

Spoiler
both count as story missions. 


Kifflom!
  • Kifflom!

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2013

#150

Posted 04 November 2013 - 03:54 AM

264px-Doge_(1).jpg

 

wow

such thread

much fites

wow





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users