Do you think all the reviews were legit?

[Saintdestroyer]

Or do you maybe think that Take Two maybe paid IGN, Gamespot and so on in order for them to recieve a 10 or near enough or do you think that they really think that game is THAT good?

 

Now i dont want to have a war between what the score should of been i just want to know do you think that their reviews were personal and that no money was given?

[dkznr3]

No. I think GTA is at a level where Rockstar could release a disc with 3000 videos of scat porn and it would still receive 10/10 in every mag just because it's called Grand Theft Auto. IV did not deserve all the perfect scores it received.

[Darrel]

You obviously don't think they were legit otherwise you wouldn't of even thought about it. I honestly think that the reviews are all legit. No bribing or any of that nonsense involved.

[Enjoii]

I think all reviews were legit and I think all scores given were deserved, the game is awesome.

[Algonquin Assassin]

I think they're all legit. People say R* bribed them, yet no one has ever proved it.

 

The old GTAs weren't far off 10s anyway, so it was only a matter of time before a GTA would get 10s across the board. Whether they were deserved or not is up for debate however.

 

Personally I don't think it deserved perfects 10s from all the reviewers, but 10s from some. If I was going to give IV an honest score I would say about a 9.

 

No GTA deserves less than a 9. IMO

Edited February 9, 2009 by Miamivicecity

[Und3r5c0r3]

I don't think they were legit. GTA4 is an OK game in a slightly-entertaining-for-10-minutes kind of way, but there is no way in hell that it is anywhere near perfect.

 

I remember reading an article written by someone who previewed GTA4, telling about how they got the "rockstar treatment." R* had all the previewers staying in a 5-star hotel to play the game, and basically made their lives a paradise for the duration of their stay. It's not technically bribing, but it's the same basic principle.

[Slamman]

I didn't barge into the story line, complete the game and whine and moan about the reviews and the boring post-plot status. I took my time, ages it seems, exploring everything. Sure, wandering all over looking for areas of interest CAN be boring, but only if you let it. To me, it was another great immersive experience, and all that land mass (and water) comes in handy when escaping loads of police.

 

The way the elements combine to create a self-contained environment that one can take several paths, and exploit various weapons. I have no doubt the reviews shared that same experience I had with the game, so basically, no...

I do not. (believe they were paid, that notion is absurd to me)

Edited February 9, 2009 by Slamman

[chngdman]

The only illegitimate part of the reviews was that the 360 version is "superior" and "if you have friends, you want the 360 version"...

 

THAT sh*t was paid for, not by Rockstar, but by Microsoft. To push the DLC stuff. Not only did the game run better on PS3 (Do not comment unless you own both consoles and have the game on both), but they went to the extent to act as if the MP would be a baron wasteland on that console. The lower resolution was my guess at why the PS3 ran it with less pop up, or the install to the hard drive being mandatory (reports after GTA IV can be installed to 360 were of better performance), but if I had to pick one, it was the install, since the PC version runs worse and worse the lower you set resolution.

 

But yea, the scores were accurate - this game is a f*ckin masterpiece and there is NO other game out that comes close to being as technical as this game. It is just the shameless microsoft-cock-sucking that was illegitimate, in my opinion.

 

@SlamMan: +1

[Slamman]

Well, with regard to what was reviewed and didn't happen, namely climbing telephone polls, as one example. For me, the reality of slow walking movement...one of the oddest adjustments I have is going back to playing Uncharted which I had for several months prior...the two main characters move at vastly different speeds... So it's a strange thing to step into Niko's shoes for the first time.

 

The drawback of all this interior promised to make the space larger while not being bigger (then SA)....that never really happened but with the promise of DLC, I am reserving judgement on what manipulation they can do within the basic game we got to start with.

Here I am again making assumptions based on the press Houser gave prior to release, the continued support of LC and GTA4 in the years ahead seem to point entirely to a DLC addendum system.

 

As they advance with the DLC model, I think it could expand to ALL new LC versions to make the game really unique as a sandbox platform...setting another bar for other games.

Edited February 9, 2009 by Slamman

[chngdman]

Wow, you're right. I forgot about all the blatant lies. I was reading those as they were coming out, I was an IGN junkie back then, man. You're totally right, there was a whole lot of BS mixed in there.

 

LoL, EA paid reviewers to over-do the reviews to get hopes up in fans and lose faith in Rockstar. lol jk

[Slamman]

Anything they looked at in a demo build (early proto-build) was subject to change... They were crafting it as they showed builds off to the press... In a perfect world the finished product would spawn those reviews, but I doubt there was called BS as the game was releasing. There was only the 10 across the board scores that got people upset.

 

I feel, given the wait, I was still very taken with GTA4, it is the best of the bunch so far, that can hardly be contested.

[chngdman]

YOU are on point MAN! Awesome! You know your sh*t! I remember they talked about being able to open the trunk of the cars. You still can with mods, but it didn't make it to the final game. Now that you mention the beta/final stuff, I wonder if they just held back a bit for future titles - that is their style. Eye opening stuff you've got there, have a

[Slamman]

I don't see how you can rule out the old adage "hindsight is always 20/20". To me that is what is behind the assumption something mentioned never materialized.

 

All we can truly assume properly is that they removed it because it was not working for the release date. I draw my own conclusion but I have my own doubt they pulled something with prior knowledge just to fill the feature plate of DLC...especially solely for the Xbox 2 exclusives. Reporting on it as they did using the Xbox to show the demo builds, it led people to assume that as well I guess.

[modCJpls]

It deserves the 10/10.

 

The only gamers that are complaining seem to be from PC.

 

They give it a 1/10 because they can't run it.

 

other than that, the gameplay and storyline is fantastic.

[Dingdongs]

You sound like a conspiracy theorist

 

Of coarse they weren't paid. Any GTA game will have 9.x.x or 10 for the rest of its existence.

[Magic_Al]

It got a 10/10 for artistic and technological accomplishments that have never been seen before. People that don't get that just aren't entertained by what the reviewers found entertaining.

 

GTA has risen to a new level of detail and it would have been impossible to upgrade everything in San Andreas to this level all at once. Maybe the pattern is that the last GTA of this generation will be the best ever, and the first GTA of the next generation will disappoint people again.

[-RFTS-]

*So why Didn't GTA IV deserved a Perfect Score??

 

*why do people complain when a game gets a 10 now a days??

 

*what games DO deserve a perfect score??

 

*why won't you people let it go already??

 

Lots of Questions to be answered!!

 

If R* did bribe reviewers then that most be something every other game company do as well, but even at that R* are the Best

 

NAaa but seriously R* deserves every positive review n awards they've gotten for making such n enjoyable n groundbreaking game!!

 

[spaceeinstein]

I believe GTA4 got a 10 based on the quality of the work. In my English class, I can get an A+ on my paper for writing an outstanding essay, but I'm no perfect writer. Based on that and Magic_Al's post, I believe GTA4 deserves a 10.

[Jaytow]

Maybe, ever since gamespots last 2 good editors left it has went a bit crazy talk stylie.

 

 

[simkas]

IMO GTAIV totaly deserves a 10/10 rating. Best game I've ever played.

[AnotherDave]

If GTA IV had been made by a different company and was released under a different name it wouldn't have got so many (if any) perfect scores.

[GamerShotgun]

And again, I have to say that people who can't understand the storyline properly call this a bad game. It's not a bad game, but some of you can't stand to watch the cutscenes.

 

It deserved 10/10 well...

[Xboxless]

Well if any of you saw X-PLAY, their scoring method is, All games are 3's, a game with a 50 on it is a 4, and a game with a 100 on it is a 5, execpt all Kaomi games are 2's.

 

Now for what I really think, no they were not bribed in anyway.

[Nico Bellic]

IMO GTAIV totaly deserves a 10/10 rating. Best game I've ever played.

same here mate ...what i wanted to say is that xbox mag and also playstation mag and some other sites also gived it 10/10 so...R* needed to pay alot if they have needed to do it ,Its game of the year so it totaly deserves 10/10

[Bullet_Chris]

Imagine being in the previewers shoes:R* would give you the chance to play the game b4 release.Sometimes when I played games, I exagerated about how good it is because it touched me in it's unique way.The other reason for bullsh*ting was that they were playing a beta which could have been a lot better.

 

I remember reading the first review and damn I was hyped.It could have been better, no doubt.But I give them a 10 and I promise I will never take previews serious.I'll even go as far as buying a 360 and the game soon.

[AnotherDave]

And again, I have to say that people who can't understand the storyline properly call this a bad game. It's not a bad game, but some of you can't stand to watch the cutscenes.

 

It deserved 10/10 well...

I don't know about others, but I've never said it's a bad game, it just isn't as close to perfect as a 10/10 score would suggest. I'd give it 85% or so, which is a fair (i.e. non-biased, non-fanboy) score.

[Druton]

The game is actually THAT good.

[Snake Without a Tongue]

R* could kill my mother and I'd still give GTAIV a 10/10. It's not a month long orgasm, and it's not the only good game out there, but as far as next gen games go, it's as good as it gets.

[Leo Colt]

The lower resolution was my guess at why the PS3 ran it with less pop up, or the install to the hard drive being mandatory (reports after GTA IV can be installed to 360 were of better performance), but if I had to pick one, it was the install, since the PC version runs worse and worse the lower you set resolution.

At first it appeared that a 360 install was better, but later on I discovered that I was getting extremely bad pop-up (before it was very minimal, hardly ever; I only installed because of the freaking noise the disc spinning makes) and also the game began to freeze occasionally. To be honest, I think performance in this area is also dependent on the age of the machine it is played on and the age of those components. My Xbox is relatively new, so that's probably why an install wasn't really necessary. Older systems may benefit from it though. I assume the PS3 is a somewhat similar situation, although there's so many factors to consider that there will never be a good solid way to tell.

 

Anyway, I don't think they were necessarily bribed (although they did receive rather lavish gifts, but that was likely just Rockstar being cool and generous). I do think they were somewhat biased. I would certainly give it a 8.5 or 9. It's a good, solid game. Basic mechanics actually work this time, and work well. The series has also been given the big graphical upgrade it has needed for a long time, and the physics are nothing short of spectacular. But I feel that there are still unresolved issues in many areas that may or may not possibly be rectified by the episode packs. I also feel that things that would genuinely improve the gameplay experience were removed for no good reason.

 

Most of the reviewers only ploughed through the story missions and weren't given a whole lot of time to just piss about, which is where the game really falters in comparison to it's predecessors (I'm not saying we need planes or anything, just some more variety in the activities we can do). I think the initial "Wow" factor is why it received unanimous praise amongst reviewers when it first came out. It really is different from the previous games. It's the big things that have been improved. Now that time has passed, you can see that while GTA IV does improve on many things, there are still other things that it's predecessors did much better. They did the little things, which is what the series is famed for. Some areas in GTA IV in terms of non-story/mission related things really were a step back, which is why I don't personally feel it deserves a 10. But hey, if you're just looking at the game storywise, then yes, it is one of the most cinematic games in history (not just the cutscenes, but the way the gameplay unfolds as well).

[buffalosoulj4h20]

i think they were legit in a way, but still the previewers were pampered, some unconscious biased thoughts might have occurred at the time. another example is rockstar inviting all of the gta webmasters to new york to play tlad early. they really know how to cater to people and from that some biased thoughts might happen after the deed is done. remember this is just plain psychological conjecture.