Score of 85 on metacritic

[BUT THE BENZ]

SUPER-V-RELATED....let's talk about stuff we don't know but let's keep it V-related eh? That's what 90 % of threads on this forum are about. Assumptions, ideas, copies of threads, copies of ideas. The other 10 % are off-topic, but it's cool because mods are involved there. Also legit, those question/answer threads (opinion gathering threads)...probably coming from R* employees...like in plain sight, but also stealth, market research.

 

So here goes my thought: imagine a few days after release you see critics and reviews all over the world, and the average score is like 80 out of 100 %. WTF happened? No 100 %? Someone didn't get paid it seems...

 

Now what could be the reason for that? What would seriously grind YOUR gears in terms of negative impressions you'd get from this game!?

 

examples:

- you cannot ride a vehicle with all 3 protags in it and perform a drive-by. (on my watch, that's like -5 % already)

- the singleplayer-campaign is waaay too short. (personally, I have quality over quantity, some people beg to differ though)

- the switch between players isn't nearly as immersive as it was praised to be (could be a letdown really, maybe another -5 % for just not having it done right)

- gunplay doesn't feel right (compared to RDR and MP3)

 

etc...etc...you know there's certain things, and if they were missing and/or not done right people'd be pissed, a lot I suppose....like:

- no properties to buy (oh this is SOOOOO bad, like, -10 %)

- no realistic steak/pizza (blasphemy, like, -25 %)

 

and so on...SOoooo, tell me yaw. What would grind YOUR gears the most?!

[Pyrrhic]

If GTA 4 on PS3 [EDIT=And Xbox] has the highest aggregate of any video game in the world (98/100 from memory) then GTA 5 will be at least 90%.

 

[EDIT] Even GTA 3 scored an average of 97/100

I think we're in for good things.

Edited March 9, 2013 by lzw3

[Capricornus]

Well, I personally stopped giving a sh*t about reviews from such sites years ago. I'll drum up my own feeling based on my own personal experience with the game.

 

An 80% out of 100%? Probably a short story as you mentioned, as well as some daunting glitches along with missing features.

[Mr Rabbit]

review sites are garbage but GTA V will break 95. if GTA IV got 98, GTA V should beat 95, maybe not 98, as III was higher rated than SA I believe so there is precedent for a game that most see as better having a lower aggregate score, in the GTA series no less. It will break 95 for sure

 

the main thing that would irk me in GTA V is if they have a short story or few weapons to make way for dlc expansions but I don't see that happening

Edited March 9, 2013 by NateShaw92

[Pyrrhic]

[...] III was higher rated than SA I believe so there is precedent for a game that most see as better having a lower aggregate score.

But keep in mind that (because no one reviews games +1 year after the release) the scores are based on technologies and hardware capabilities of their corresponding times. So because GTA 3 was a massive revolution in gaming it got enormous ratings (and ravings). However 3-4 years later for San Andreas' the size of the game and it's amazing gameplay didn't come as much of a surprise and it would have been rather expected.

 

Due to this, GTA 5 may score in the low 90's, as there's not as much of a leap from PS3 capability to PS4 compared to the jump from PS1 to PS2.

[JOSEPH X]

Prepare for the backlash. A lot of gaming sites that gave GTA IV a 10 could lower their scores this time if they think V is just a rehash of IV + episodes. What would you think if it 75s?

[BUT THE BENZ]

lol guys I agree that critics and reviews are basically IRRELEVANT to the individual...and they're mostly biased and paid off too.

So I was askin what you PERSONALLY thought would be a huge letdown that led you to give less than 90 % of a score. What can YOU see going wrong with V?

 

I am pretty much optimistic after MP3, but as I said, if I can't get into the same car with the 3 protags (off-mission) then V has already failed me. You can't advertise it like OH YOU GOT 3 DUDES TO PLAY...and OH YOU CAN SWITCH BETWEEN EM ALL THE TIME....and then in the final product you can't even get in the same car with all 3 and perform a drive-by....THAT, would be a personal let-down

 

What'd be yours?!

[rare.steak]

IV is overrated (probably from review site tip-offs) so comparisons aren't very valid.

[Racecarlock]

As yahtzee said in the mailbag showdown episode of zero punctuation, "It's worth remembering that all reviews are subjective, personal opinions and if you personally enjoyed a game, then they really shouldn't get to you. Unless, of course, there's a despicable little niggling doubt in the back of your mind that maybe you're not having as much fun as you've convinced yourself you're having which doesn't go away no matter how many times you try to smack it down with the wet flannel of weak excuses."

 

Here's another quote from the same episode. "You like numbers? How about four? As in fork you. Do you really need someone in authority giving you a simple yay or nay before you buy anything? Why don't you roll over so they can stamp on the other side of your face?"

[BUT THE BENZ]

Yeah great motivational speech bruh. SCRATCH that review/critic thought...this' about what YOU think and what might let YOU down in terms of expectations. Like, that property owning thing which will seemingly not be available as seen in SA, which has quite some people upset apparently. It would personally be bothering people, even if it was just a little bit or whatever. Talkin about that kinda thing.

 

The thought in the OP I had originally was that some people gathered their expressions, which would also (possibly) include the let-downs they personally experienced, and thus they'd credit the game with 85 %. Because of the amount of letdowns or maybe the intesity of a few letdowns, I don't know...that's fictional

 

Just sayin...what aspect(s) of the game could/would cause YOU to give a game like V, which is R*'s most ambitious game ever or something, a score like 85 %. <--- which definitely says you expected a few things to be different/better/whatever....what YOU think etc...scratch reviews and all that, we all know reviews are for the trash can and that's it.

[grandola]

It would totally be lame, for me, if the world was not as alive as described in the GI preview, or if there was no weapon wheel,or if the shooting mechanics weren't at least on par with Max Payne 3.

 

However, I'm not worried in the least.

 

[shattered-minds]

It's a difficult one. I don't rate games on a scale of 1-100. I also judge game based on how fun it is to play, as to me, thats the only thing that counts.

If I had to rate it 1-10 I think its a pretty flawed system if you're starting at 100 and deducting "points" for things you don't like or wished were in the game.

 

The only way that GTA5 could Score "less than 90" for me is it's either GTA4 re-skinned or it just isn't fun to play. Personally, couldn't give a sh*t about properties or any of those other things people keep banging on about.

[Finn 7 five 11]

The rating's will be high, even if the game sucks, the GIF below is so relevant it's ridiculous, I don't like it, but like I said, it's relevant.

I think the game will get a high rating anyway, but hypothetically speaking if it didn't, I would still purchase it.

 

[THEMANatwar]

If it has a SimCity launch.

[reform]

From a personal perspective, I'd knock some points off if:

 

-Clothing customisation is as bad as IV

-Little sense of character progression from start to end

-Too few or poor or no rewards for achieving certain goals (packages/complete story/100% game, etc).

-A lack of things to do once the game if completed.

-No mission replay feature.

-Lack of fun and chaotic cheats such as ped riot/armed peds, Army lockdown... any of the cheats that were in previous games basically.

-No pedestrians viewable through sniper scope from long distances/high structures.

-OTT police presence.

-Mission-only items/features/abilities/locations that cannot be aquired/repeated/performed/accessed outside of missions.

-Falling from very high spots and bouncing instead of splatting.

-Cars always knocking into you when crossing a road.

-Slow character animations/actions/movement.

 

Probably laods more I'd knock points off for too.

[Mister Pink]

From a personal perspective, I'd knock some points off if:

 

-Clothing customisation is as bad as IV

-Little sense of character progression from start to end

-Too few or poor or no rewards for achieving certain goals (packages/complete story/100% game, etc).

-A lack of things to do once the game if completed.

-No mission replay feature.

-Lack of fun and chaotic cheats such as ped riot/armed peds, Army lockdown... any of the cheats that were in previous games basically.

-No pedestrians viewable through sniper scope from long distances/high structures.

-OTT police presence.

-Mission-only items/features/abilities/locations that cannot be aquired/repeated/performed/accessed outside of missions.

-Falling from very high spots and bouncing instead of splatting.

-Cars always knocking into you when crossing a road.

-Slow character animations/actions/movement.

 

Probably laods more I'd knock points off for too.

Yes. I like agree with this.

[Honest Bill]

For me it would be if the game is extremely linear and restrictive, and if the characters are all unbelievable.

[AtomicPunk]

Prepare for the backlash. A lot of gaming sites that gave GTA IV a 10 could lower their scores this time if they think V is just a rehash of IV + episodes. What would you think if it 75s?

GTA IV I gave an 80/100. Because V is bigger, and with more features, it will most likely score high 90's unless R* made some really lazy, stupid decisions. I take any of these ratings by any of these websites with a grain of salt. A lot of them are paid off, and even the ones that aren't, don't really know any more about video games than the average gamer. It's just their geeky, akward, ugly opinion, and those are like a$$holes; Everybody's got one.

[Racecarlock]

Yeah great motivational speech bruh. SCRATCH that review/critic thought...this' about what YOU think and what might let YOU down in terms of expectations. Like, that property owning thing which will seemingly not be available as seen in SA, which has quite some people upset apparently. It would personally be bothering people, even if it was just a little bit or whatever. Talkin about that kinda thing.

 

The thought in the OP I had originally was that some people gathered their expressions, which would also (possibly) include the let-downs they personally experienced, and thus they'd credit the game with 85 %. Because of the amount of letdowns or maybe the intesity of a few letdowns, I don't know...that's fictional

 

Just sayin...what aspect(s) of the game could/would cause YOU to give a game like V, which is R*'s most ambitious game ever or something, a score like 85 %. <--- which definitely says you expected a few things to be different/better/whatever....what YOU think etc...scratch reviews and all that, we all know reviews are for the trash can and that's it.

Ok, I'm game.

 

First off, too much realism. For example when people suggest stuff like mandatory story mandated 9 to 5 drudge jobs, fuel, random pull overs, traffic laws, hunger, and so on, I get mad because this stuff would directly impact my gameplay experience even though I don't want to role play or get fuel or eat in a video game.

 

I mean, I don't mind if the physics get more real or the pedestrians seem more human or even small details like the steering wheel turning as you steer, because those won't force me to do some arbitrary chore every half hour. Hell, realistic steak? Sure, why not? As long as I don't have to eat it every half hour or die of f*ckin' hunger then that's cool. Hell, I even want realistic water and destruction physics myself. I mean I don't need to be able to destroy whole skyscrapers, but the ability to blow up signs and destroy small houses and trailers and toll booths would be cool.

 

Second, if the game is nerfed to serve a story. Good stories are fantastic, but GTA IV in particular suffered from this problem, replacing extreme sports with darts and comedy clubs and flying planes with bowling and pool. Those mini games are still fine, but the social system is literally one of the only things to do after a story. I mean, they had street racing but they ran out of races somehow. They had assassinations and vigilante work, but shooting dudes gets boring after a while. No more large off road areas, no more massive stunt ramps like that big one in the desert in San Andreas, and gambling seemingly deleted itself. I mean, come on, new york doesn't have casinos? Not one? Bullsh*t.

 

I also miss the demolition derby. I would have loved to see how RAGE would have handled a derby, but no, that activity is gone no matter which episode you play. Unless you manage to organize 15 other players into a derby in one of those small arenas that would have been perfect for the activity anyways, and I lack those skills to organize something like that. It's especially frustrating because guess what happens when you damage another vehicle too much in free roam? Wanted star. Even a mile from civilization, bash a car too much with your own and the police will be there in 30 f*ckin' seconds flat to stop you having fun destroying a vehicle, even if it's one you spawned while in your other spawned car. So now I'm stuck without a sanctioned car destruction activity and I have to use the wanted down cheat every time I damage another car too much. Yay.

 

Hopefully V won't make these mistakes. In fact, it looks like V actually managed to fix them this time around. We'll see come september.

[reform]

Good points Racecar, pretty much totally agree.

[Mister Pink]

I must agree with most of what you said too racecar.