I already clocked 30 hours in it. I'm pretty sure in my opinion.Sure..if you believe that, i will wait for the impressions of gaffers and what not.
I already clocked 30 hours in it. I'm pretty sure in my opinion.Sure..if you believe that, i will wait for the impressions of gaffers and what not.
Every..single..time with GTA. I am depressed how this industry has come. Really there are also other good and quality's games but this is so mutch hyperbole and they don't get mutch attention then only GTA. I am not falling in that rockstar trap again. Escapist review is pretty honest but that's about it really.
GTA V - no multiplayer at launch.
brother.... this is too muchI can imagine, 200 years from now, like our reading of Dickens, the game will be regarded as a catalog of our contemporary travails, an accelerated reality bearing more truth than just gazing at our own reflection..
Sessler's review is hilarious. I get that you like the game man, but dial it down a notch. Comparing the housers mediocre as fuck writing to dickens is the new oscar worthy, i think.
As for all the reviews, the game seems to be a solid 9 and the best open world game since san andreas. Great to hear, and I cant wait for midnight.
Is this game not worthy of such praise? because I can't really count any game that equals this much of a game.
I think Jeff from GB expects every open world game to have super powers. He really liked SRIV quite a bit. I really can't think of any other open world game beyond SRIV that made traversal easier.
I fully understand what Sessler was going for. I think people are confusing his statement with him comparing GTAV to classic literature and he's really not. He's saying GTAV could very well be used as a case study into what 20XX life was like in a similar way that classic literature can be used to do the same for that time period.
Makes sense to me. People in 2250 will see GTAV and be able to pick out the pop culture references and the things the game touches on (NSA spying, tech, etc) that was popular today.
Sessler's review is hilarious. I get that you like the game man, but dial it down a notch. Comparing the housers mediocre as fuck writing to dickens is the new oscar worthy, i think..
Just play it yourself, don't wait for impressions. Are reviews impressions any different from simple folk here? Not really
Is there any early word on which version is better, or even which platform all of these reviews are from? Im getting it on PS3 and hope its not massively inferior
dan houser is a pretty good writer, its just nature of rockstar's open world games, that it might not be as "good writing" as a linear game like TLOU... but Dan is a fantastic writer
Is there any early word on which version is better, or even which platform all of these reviews are from? Im getting it on PS3 and hope its not massively inferior
Yeah, they shouldn't have given GTA IV that score because they knew GTA V would be better. This is going to be awful when GTA VI comes and blows GTA V away.really?
Both versions are near-identical in performance. Seriously.
I posted this in the other thread, but it was locked so:
I wonder how many people making fun of Sessler's Dickens quote have actually read Dickens in any real critical way.
There's nothing wrong with that quote. He's just saying that like Dickens' work is a window into that time period GTAV will be a window into ours one day. That's...true. It will be a very interesting work to look at for someone 100 or 200 years from now. It seems to be quite the cultural time capsule of 2010-2013 in terms of tone.
"Rockstar had a chance to elevate, and they wasted it on portraying characters you don't want to spend five minutes with, let alone the hours it would take to play through the game's story."
This just defined my problems with every GTA game since Vice City...It's the setting, story and characters...
PS3 version seems a bit better from all of the people who got it early. It seems to trade a few fps here and there to eliminate most of the pop in and it seems to be a little sharper looking than the 360 version, which has bad pop in but a steadier overall framerate. We're not talking 20fps here or anything like that, ps3 version seems to be 25-30 no matter how crazy it gets.
I just take it to mean that at the time, the previous game was a 10/10 by the standards at the time and now this is also a 10/10 by today's standards. Sure not a whole lot of time has passed but I think things have definitely gotten better so I can see how 2 games get the same score yet one is arguable better than the other.I find it slightly funny that GTA IV got 10s from the same sites which have given GTA V a 10 even though GTA V is apparently better than IV in pretty much every conceivable way. Shows how ridiculous review scores have become.
PS3 version seems a bit better from all of the people who got it early. It seems to trade a few fps here and there to eliminate most of the pop in and it seems to be a little sharper looking than the 360 version, which has bad pop in but a steadier overall framerate. We're not talking 20fps here or anything like that, ps3 version seems to be 25-30 no matter how crazy it gets.
I really didn't like Adam sessler's review. He tries way too hard to make the game be more that what it is. Takes game way too seriously and way too many hyperbolic statements. Don't really have a problem with his score but just some if the stuff he says makes me go really?
Think you missed the point...
GTA IV had many areas that needed improving which GTA V clearly addressed, so it getting a 10 is silly. If GTA V has little that needs improving which is possible with current gen tech then it's deserving of the 10 regardless of what the next gen GTA VI achieves.
I don't seem to understand what you expect to get out of these reviews then. If you didn't enjoy San Andreas, which is pretty much universally loved by hardcore GTA fans and everybody else, then you've kinda gotta consider yourself a small minority on this subject, whose opinion is not likely to reflect the general opinion of others.I'm pretty sure that's how it went last time as well. The people that have the game now are die hard GTA fans. Of course they're going to love it. It sounds like it's more of the same. That is not a positive attribute for me though. I haven't enjoyed a GTA game since Vice City.
After other people like myself who are on the fence buy the game then it'll be interesting. I'm sure there are a lot of people out there that are not willing to fork out the $60 to get burned again. When we see a sale then I'll be back with bated breath.
I can tell you about hunting. There is a side mission for it where you need to hunt deer for money and completing challenges. You hunt using whistle, stealth and sniper rifle and need to snap photo of every kill.
I really didn't like Adam sessler's review. He tries way too hard to make the game be more that what it is. Takes game way too seriously and way too many hyperbolic statements. Don't really have a problem with his score but just some if the stuff he says makes me go really?
Good scores. Not surprised though.
GTA IV also had great scores. And that game turned out to be pretty mediocre in my opinion. Had way more fun in RDR and SR3.
So I learned my lesson last time. I will not be buying this based on these reviews. I'll wait for impressions from other neogaf posters. I know with GTA IV there were many people on here that I agreed with regarding the game. In neogaf I trust.
Sessler's review is hilarious. I get that you like the game man, but dial it down a notch. Comparing the housers mediocre as fuck writing to dickens is the new oscar worthy, i think.
As for all the reviews, the game seems to be a solid 9 and the best open world game since san andreas. Great to hear, and I cant wait for midnight.
Reviews are opinions of a game at the time they were reviewed; not looking back from several years in the future.
Yep. I felt the same of both Vice City and San Andreas as well, they work as time capsules for both the 80s and 90s, at least in terms of pop culture of the times in a nutshell.
If performance was bad I assume someone would have mentioned it in a review. A game this expansive and long will highlight the technical deficiencies.Is that performance less than desirable? The fact this is on current generation hardware and not next generation hardware is making me wary.
PS3 version seems a bit better from all of the people who got it early. It seems to trade a few fps here and there to eliminate most of the pop in and it seems to be a little sharper looking than the 360 version, which has bad pop in but a steadier overall framerate. We're not talking 20fps here or anything like that, ps3 version seems to be 25-30 no matter how crazy it gets.
So how's the PS3 version this time? (haven't been following any previews)
Reviews are opinions of a game at the time they were reviewed; not looking back from several years in the future.