Think GTA V will beat GTA IV (98%) on Metacritic?

[Druffmaul]

Nothing against IV, because all GTA's are still fun despite not being perfect in their own ways, but how the f*%$ did GTA IV outscore San Andreas 98-95???

By being a better game.

[oRRe13]

Nothing against IV, because all GTA's are still fun despite not being perfect in their own ways, but how the f*%$ did GTA IV outscore San Andreas 98-95???

Mainly because it improved on so many features that were annoying in the previous games. IV really fixed a lot of technical issues, which made for better gameplay. SA might've had more content, but IV had a better story, better car handling with realistic car damage, better shooting (mainly because of cover system), more alive and breathing city and so forth. IV was simply just way more detailed and well made than SA.

 

But sure, SA should've been closer to 98 %. Both SA and IV are great games in their own respective way.

[Ryan]

Wrong topic

Edited June 5, 2013 by Ryan

[Johan]

Wouldn't be surprised if it does, feature wise it looks much more advanced than IV.

 

I think the only way it'll get lower is if it ends up being buggy and unplayable with the 3 protagonists idea

[Zancudo]

 

Just wait

I smell paid reviews.

Why would it be paid reviews? It's NAUGHTY DOG. And clearly, it is the best exclusive on the PS3.

Excuse me, but didn't you notice that almost every Sony exclusive title that comes out receives excessively sweet high scores?

 

LittleBigPlanet, a mere platformer slanted toward the youngest community of players, the game about stacking puzzles with some cotton monsters, has an unbelievable score of 95% on Metacritic.

 

Killzone 2, an extremely generic first-person shooter that differs none from any other first-person shooter around earned a proud Metascore of 91%, even though it didn't do anything to deserve such a great result, as it doesn't bring absolutely nothing new to the table.

 

Uncharted 2: Among Thieves, just another third-person shooter with especially naive storyline that's supposed to bring freshness to the industry by... yes, nothing. It does not contain nothing that every third-person shooter has to offer, except exceedingly detailed visuals, yet it claims a score of 96% on Metacritic. Good joke! I thought visuals are something secondary to the overall impression, but I guess I was wrong. Or am I in minority?

 

God of War III with a score of 92% on Metacritic. May I say more how ridiculous does this sound?

 

Sony is either paying reviewers fine, or the players are really so blind by the sign of "Only on PlayStation" that they can't see sh*t no more. I'm not pointing that The Last of Us is going to be a mere game - it's bound to be groundbreaking - but when I see reviewers giving 10s to a game that's linear, short, limited and unoriginal, I start to think whether games like L.A. Noire are too smart for todays standards.

 

PS: PlayStation owner here.

[Machine Head]

Just wait

I smell paid reviews.

Why would it be paid reviews? It's NAUGHTY DOG. And clearly, it is the best exclusive on the PS3.

Excuse me, but didn't you notice that almost every Sony exclusive title that comes out receives excessively sweet high scores?

 

LittleBigPlanet, a mere platformer slanted toward the youngest community of players, the game about stacking puzzles with some cotton monsters, has an unbelievable score of 95% on Metacritic.

 

Killzone 2, an extremely generic first-person shooter that differs none from any other first-person shooter around earned a proud Metascore of 91%, even though it didn't do anything to deserve such a great result, as it doesn't bring absolutely nothing new to the table.

 

Uncharted 2: Among Thieves, just another third-person shooter with especially naive storyline that's supposed to bring freshness to the industry by... yes, nothing. It does not contain nothing that every third-person shooter has to offer, except exceedingly detailed visuals, yet it claims a score of 96% on Metacritic. Good joke! I thought visuals are something secondary to the overall impression, but I guess I was wrong. Or am I in minority?

 

God of War III with a score of 92% on Metacritic. May I say more how ridiculous does this sound?

 

Sony is either paying reviewers fine, or the players are really so blind by the sign of "Only on PlayStation" that they can't see sh*t no more. I'm not pointing that The Last of Us is going to be a mere game - it's bound to be groundbreaking - but when I see reviewers giving 10s to a game that's linear, short, limited and unoriginal, I start to think whether games like L.A. Noire are too smart for todays standards.

 

PS: PlayStation owner here.

Your constant use of double negatives is rather amusing.

 

OT: I don't know. Probably not. It's hardly gonna be a perfect game. It might get 97% or 98%. Time will tell.

[Lil_B_The Basedgod]

LittleBigPlanet, a mere platformer slanted toward the youngest community of players, the game about stacking puzzles with some cotton monsters, has an unbelievable score of 95% on Metacritic.

 

 

LBP is one the greatest, most creative games ever! Anyone can play it and enjoy it. It definitely deserved the score it got.

[Johan]

Just wait

I smell paid reviews.

Why would it be paid reviews? It's NAUGHTY DOG. And clearly, it is the best exclusive on the PS3.

Excuse me, but didn't you notice that almost every Sony exclusive title that comes out receives excessively sweet high scores?

 

LittleBigPlanet, a mere platformer slanted toward the youngest community of players, the game about stacking puzzles with some cotton monsters, has an unbelievable score of 95% on Metacritic.

 

Killzone 2, an extremely generic first-person shooter that differs none from any other first-person shooter around earned a proud Metascore of 91%, even though it didn't do anything to deserve such a great result, as it doesn't bring absolutely nothing new to the table.

 

Uncharted 2: Among Thieves, just another third-person shooter with especially naive storyline that's supposed to bring freshness to the industry by... yes, nothing. It does not contain nothing that every third-person shooter has to offer, except exceedingly detailed visuals, yet it claims a score of 96% on Metacritic. Good joke! I thought visuals are something secondary to the overall impression, but I guess I was wrong. Or am I in minority?

 

God of War III with a score of 92% on Metacritic. May I say more how ridiculous does this sound?

 

Sony is either paying reviewers fine, or the players are really so blind by the sign of "Only on PlayStation" that they can't see sh*t no more. I'm not pointing that The Last of Us is going to be a mere game - it's bound to be groundbreaking - but when I see reviewers giving 10s to a game that's linear, short, limited and unoriginal, I start to think whether games like L.A. Noire are too smart for todays standards.

 

PS: PlayStation owner here.

Oh no, exclusives are getting high scores! It must be payed!

 

 

Love the logic here

[redx165]

It'll either get the same or slightly lower. In any case, it doesn't really matter - how the f*ck did a boring and redundant game like Uncharted 2 get in there anyway?

Someone never played Uncharted 2. It did deserve that score. The Last of Us looks like it deserves a high score too. Rockstar isn't the only good company. Maybe you should play other games.

[GTAaLEX117]

 

Killzone 2, an extremely generic first-person shooter that differs none from any other first-person shooter around earned a proud Metascore of 91%, even though it didn't do anything to deserve such a great result, as it doesn't bring absolutely nothing new to the table.

I agree with you on this one. KZ2 "Nazis in space" was a generic FPS that only did one thing right: it had good graphics (even though they were still "generic war shooter brown"). The gameplay was nothing really interesting and its MP died so fast it wasn't even funny.

Edited June 5, 2013 by GTAaLEX117

[Sneakerhead.]

 

LittleBigPlanet, a mere platformer slanted toward the youngest community of players, the game about stacking puzzles with some cotton monsters, has an unbelievable score of 95% on Metacritic.

 

 

LBP is one the greatest, most creative games ever! Anyone can play it and enjoy it. It definitely deserved the score it got.

Hell yes, LBP was one of the most addictive games I ever played.

 

OT: I can see GTA V getting a high 90s score, but I don't know about beating IV Which had a 98!).

 

I mean, IV is a good game, but it doesn't deserve the 98 score, maybe a 85 or something.

 

GTA V on the other hand deserves a 98.

I don't know; time will tell.....

[lol232]

Nothing against IV, because all GTA's are still fun despite not being perfect in their own ways, but how the f*%$ did GTA IV outscore San Andreas 98-95???

Because it's better than San Andreas, of course. InB4Butthurt.

[redx165]

Nothing against IV, because all GTA's are still fun despite not being perfect in their own ways, but how the f*%$ did GTA IV outscore San Andreas 98-95???

Because it's better than San Andreas, of course. InB4Butthurt.

It's clearly not. GTA IV was over hyped and many can agree with me on that.

[richard1997jones]

I think we all have high expectations.

[lol232]

Nothing against IV, because all GTA's are still fun despite not being perfect in their own ways, but how the f*%$ did GTA IV outscore San Andreas 98-95???

Because it's better than San Andreas, of course. InB4Butthurt.

It's clearly not. GTA IV was over hyped and many can agree with me on that.

Nah, GTA SA is overrated and many can agree with that.

[wwinterj]

 

Why would it be paid reviews? It's NAUGHTY DOG. And clearly, it is the best exclusive on the PS3.

That's all subjective on what's the best exclusive on the PS3. For example one of them for me would be Playstation All Stars Battle Royal yet I'm sure many will not agree and perhaps even hate the game. Different strokes for different folks.

 

Back on topic if GTA V is as good as it seems then I expect high scores.

SA is the GTA game R* need to surpass and V seems to be doing that. IV did not.

[suicidehummer]

How could it not?

[Zancudo]

Nothing against IV, because all GTA's are still fun despite not being perfect in their own ways, but how the f*%$ did GTA IV outscore San Andreas 98-95???

Because it's better than San Andreas, of course. InB4Butthurt.

It's clearly not. GTA IV was over hyped and many can agree with me on that.

Many people will also agree with you that it's cool to put a finger in the ass and lick the brownish, but it doesn't change the fact it's sick and stupido. Similarily to GTA IV. You can hate it, along with thousands of people, but it's an astonishing game for many anyway.

[redx165]

 

Nothing against IV, because all GTA's are still fun despite not being perfect in their own ways, but how the f*%$ did GTA IV outscore San Andreas 98-95???

Because it's better than San Andreas, of course. InB4Butthurt.

It's clearly not. GTA IV was over hyped and many can agree with me on that.

Nah, GTA SA is overrated and many can agree with that.

Not as overrated as GTA IV. When we came to play GTA SA we all enjoyed it. Some more then others. When GTA IV came out we all enjoyed it but it left a bad taste in most gamers mouths. GTA IV is a overrated game that didn't deserve the score it got. Even on the forums everyone says GTA V needs to beat SA not IV cause IV didn't even surpass SA.

[lol232]

^Eh, I do love GTA SA but the game is pretty overrated.

 

Anyway, you have no clue if you think GTA IV is overrated, I must say the game is underrated, look at how many people hate the game and look at how many sh*t the game is getting.

Those SA Fanboys are irritating.

GTA IV was far better than SA.

Edited June 5, 2013 by lol232

[omer19992010]

Nothing against IV, because all GTA's are still fun despite not being perfect in their own ways, but how the f*%$ did GTA IV outscore San Andreas 98-95???

Because it's better than San Andreas, of course. InB4Butthurt.

It's clearly not. GTA IV was over hyped and many can agree with me on that.

Nah, GTA SA is overrated and many can agree with that.

Not as overrated as GTA IV. When we came to play GTA SA we all enjoyed it. Some more then others. When GTA IV came out we all enjoyed it but it left a bad taste in most gamers mouths. GTA IV is a overrated game that didn't deserve the score it got. Even on the forums everyone says GTA V needs to beat SA not IV cause IV didn't even surpass SA.

I'm pretty sure most Gamers Enjoyed GTA IV. Only about 20% of the people that played GTA IV Didn't Like it. IMO it deserved all the perfect Scores.

[redx165]

 

^Eh, I do love GTA SA but the game is pretty overrated.

 

Anyway, you have no clue if you think GTA IV is overrated, I must say the game is underrated, look at how many people hate the game and look at how many sh*t the game is getting.

Those SA Fanboys are irritating.

GTA IV was far better than SA.

Base on the reviews it was overrated. IGN gave it a 10-10 just cause of the name GTA. It is a overrated game because of GTA SA. GTA SA made GTA IV but IV couldn't hold up to GTA SA.

 

@ omer19992010 Where did you get those facts from?

[The Wolfman]

Nothing against IV, because all GTA's are still fun despite not being perfect in their own ways, but how the f*%$ did GTA IV outscore San Andreas 98-95???

That just baffles me, when you finish the main storyline in gta san andreas there is so much to do. But in gta iv it's boring and there is nothing to do at all except shoot people. Don't get me wrong, the storyline in IV was good but it's the fact that when the game is finished there is nothing to do. So how the hell did gta iv score more than san andreas? Ugh.

[suicidehummer]

God you ppl are idiots saying IV was bad. They focused on QUALITY for IV, instead of the number of side activities and sh*t. The graphics and physics are vastly improved from SA. IV was a more mature game, that's why so many immature idiots hate it.

[redx165]

 

God you ppl are idiots saying IV was bad. They focused on QUALITY for IV, instead of the number of side activities and sh*t. The graphics and physics are vastly improved from SA. IV was a more mature game, that's why so many immature idiots hate it.

Quality? What Quality? They only focus on the environment and story. GTA IV felt like a linear game in a open world environment. The only thing good about IV was Story, Graphics, and physics. Everything else sucked. The gunplay was bad in IV but was corrected in RDR.

Edited June 5, 2013 by redx165

[FranticFatality]

We don't know until we play.

[The Wolfman]

God you ppl are idiots saying IV was bad. They focused on QUALITY for IV, instead of the number of side activities and sh*t. The graphics and physics are vastly improved from SA. IV was a more mature game, that's why so many immature idiots hate it.

Quality doesn't matter, it's all about the gameplay.

[Dale Nixon]

It'll either get the same or slightly lower. In any case, it doesn't really matter - how the f*ck did a boring and redundant game like Uncharted 2 get in there anyway?

Someone never played Uncharted 2. It did deserve that score. The Last of Us looks like it deserves a high score too. Rockstar isn't the only good company. Maybe you should play other games.

Again, I did play it. Maybe you should properly read other posts before you reply to me the same way as someone else did. And it's hilarious, by the way, someone calling Uncharted 2 a masterpiece - which you are considering you said it deserved that score - and at the same time calling GTA IV overrated.

 

Get your head straight, mate.

[redx165]

It'll either get the same or slightly lower. In any case, it doesn't really matter - how the f*ck did a boring and redundant game like Uncharted 2 get in there anyway?

Someone never played Uncharted 2. It did deserve that score. The Last of Us looks like it deserves a high score too. Rockstar isn't the only good company. Maybe you should play other games.

Again, I did play it. Maybe you should properly read other posts before you reply to me the same way as someone else did. And it's hilarious, by the way, someone calling Uncharted 2 a masterpiece - which you are considering you said it deserved that score - and at the same time calling GTA IV overrated.

 

Get your head straight, mate.

Uncharted 2 isn't a masterpiece but it did deserve unlike IV. Uncharted 2 didn't get any help and did improve over the last. While GTA IV only improve somethings but used the name GTA SA to help it get those scores.

 

Uncharted 2 - Had one game before that. I still consider Uncharted 1 underrated

Grand Theft Auto IV - Had 9 different GTA games before it and GTA SA is what help it get those scores

[Happyness]

God you ppl are idiots saying IV was bad. They focused on QUALITY for IV, instead of the number of side activities and sh*t. The graphics and physics are vastly improved from SA. IV was a more mature game, that's why so many immature idiots hate it.

f*ck off already, immature idiots? You're the immature here who can't accept the truth that IV was not superior to SA apart from graphics and physics. Oh please tell me, what is there to do after story line? Your opinion is flawed in so many ways. Side activities and sh*t is what makes a game AFTER the story you fool.