Carolyn's GTA V review was right

  • 196 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by drekula2 (1906 posts) -

After the hype dies down, it looks like her review was right.

1. GTA V is not a 10/10.

2. The game does treat women like crap (yes she did make that a big part of her review, but the game has problems beyond that)

3. The characters do behave inconsistently (and it does cripple the narrative, which struggles between silly and serious)

4. It is politically muddled (it's a game that tries to be political every single minute but still has no specific message it wants to send)

#2 Posted by MonsieurX (29474 posts) -

Cool.

So you agree with her,what's next?

#3 Edited by LJS9502_basic (150278 posts) -

I disagree. A review should be about the game....not political statements. Frankly.....when a world is created....be it movie or game....there will be actions which we may find objectionable. But the review should NOT focus on that. If someone has a problem with some "worlds"...then maybe they shouldn't get involved with it.

In other words...if you can't keep your personal agenda out of the review....you are not best suited to do that review.

#4 Edited by Suppaman100 (3760 posts) -

It's a freaking satire, that's the part she didn't get.

#5 Edited by Desmonic (13382 posts) -

This would have been relevant some 2-3 months ago. It's 2014 brah, nobody cares anymore :P

#6 Edited by trugs26 (5287 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

I disagree. A review should be about the game....not political statements. Frankly.....when a world is created....be it movie or game....there will be actions which we may find objectionable. But the review should NOT focus on that. If someone has a problem with some "worlds"...then maybe they shouldn't get involved with it.

In other words...if you can't keep your personal agenda out of the review....you are not best suited to do that review.

But why? A review means to look at and analyse the product. This doesn't imply objectiveness. Some reviews try to be (e.g Eurogamer's tech analysis), and some reviews are partial (Eurogamer's scored reviews - much like every other major website). But whose to say which is the right way? You? What's your reasoning?

Most reviews are partially objective. It's easier for humans to gauge it that way too and makes for a more interesting read.

On this specific case of GTA5, she observed a political issue in her analysis. This is still a review, it's not wrong. It's up to you, the reader, to judge whether or not it's worth your time. It doesn't mean she shouldn't do it altogether - other people may find this observation useful and worth considering when they want to purchase the game.

#7 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150278 posts) -

@trugs26 said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

I disagree. A review should be about the game....not political statements. Frankly.....when a world is created....be it movie or game....there will be actions which we may find objectionable. But the review should NOT focus on that. If someone has a problem with some "worlds"...then maybe they shouldn't get involved with it.

In other words...if you can't keep your personal agenda out of the review....you are not best suited to do that review.

But why? A review means to look at and analyse the product. This doesn't imply objectiveness. Some reviews try to be (e.g Eurogamer's tech analysis), and some reviews are partial (Eurogamer's scored reviews - much like every other major website). But whose to say which is the right way? You? What's your reasoning?

Most reviews are partially objective. It's easier for humans to gauge it that way too and makes for a more interesting read.

On this specific case of GTA5, she observed a political issue in her analysis. This is still a review, it's not wrong. It's up to you, the reader, to judge whether or not it's worth your time. It doesn't mean she shouldn't do it altogether - other people may find this observation useful and worth considering when they want to purchase the game.

I want to know if a game is worth purchasing. If it's broken....how the graphics stack up. Not political commentary from a reviewer. I'm actually an intelligent adult and I know what to expect with GTA. It's not like this is the first game created. It's a series of games. It kind of insults my intelligence to read rants about the world created.

But even if it were the first game in the series....it's okay to say what kind of world it is...but NOT use a personal opinion of the content to rate the game. You're not a good reviewer if you can't keep personal opinion at least to a minimum.....though it should be object.

I don't really like racing games. They are boring. But if I were to be paid to review a game in that genre...then I have to look at how well it recreates that world...what works and what doesn't....and NOT base my score on my preference.

#8 Posted by Pffrbt (6527 posts) -

The game doesn't deserve a 9/10. It deserves a 4-5/10.

#9 Posted by lostrib (34236 posts) -

a bit late

#10 Posted by Netret0120 (2027 posts) -

I disagree with the both of you. Now what?

It's a fantastic game. Deal with it

#11 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38214 posts) -

Opinions, how do they work?

#12 Edited by Krelian-co (10359 posts) -

@Suppaman100 said:

It's a freaking satire, that's the part she didn't get.

and a great one. That's what happens when you are trying to push political point of views on reviews and why she fails as a reviewer.

#13 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (6955 posts) -

I disagree. A review should be about the game....not political statements. Frankly.....when a world is created....be it movie or game....there will be actions which we may find objectionable. But the review should NOT focus on that. If someone has a problem with some "worlds"...then maybe they shouldn't get involved with it.

In other words...if you can't keep your personal agenda out of the review....you are not best suited to do that review.

She scored the game a 9/10.

#14 Posted by drekula2 (1906 posts) -

@Desmonic said:

This would have been relevant some 2-3 months ago. It's 2014 brah, nobody cares anymore :P

that's pretty much the point. for a game that was hyped to be a 10/10 end-all-be-all of gaming, it's quite sad that GTA V was largely forgotten 3 weeks later.

It's a freaking satire, that's the part she didn't get.

except "it's satire" can be used to basically justify just about anything that's disagreeable or abhorrently wrong without further question

I disagree. A review should be about the game....not political statements.

when treating women like equals with basic human respect is some sort of political agenda, that's where i facepalm.

#15 Edited by hrt_rulz01 (5750 posts) -

I agree it's not a 10/10 game... that's for sure.

#16 Edited by Krelian-co (10359 posts) -

@drekula2 said:

@Desmonic said:

This would have been relevant some 2-3 months ago. It's 2014 brah, nobody cares anymore :P

that's pretty much the point. for a game that was hyped to be a 10/10 end-all-be-all of gaming, it's quite sad that GTA V was largely forgotten 3 weeks later.

@Suppaman100 said:

It's a freaking satire, that's the part she didn't get.

except "it's satire" can be used to basically justify just about anything that's disagreeable or abhorrently wrong without further question

@LJS9502_basic said:

I disagree. A review should be about the game....not political statements.

when treating women like equals with basic human respect is some sort of political agenda, that's where i facepalm.

the game makes fun of absolutely everything, from black people and rednecks to the american dream, absolutely everything, people like you and carolyn and your political correctness always whining about everything is what is destroying the media.

#17 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (6955 posts) -

It's a freaking satire, that's the part she didn't get.

Well, maybe she just didn't think it was very funny at times.

#18 Edited by LJS9502_basic (150278 posts) -

@drekula2 said:

@Desmonic said:

This would have been relevant some 2-3 months ago. It's 2014 brah, nobody cares anymore :P

that's pretty much the point. for a game that was hyped to be a 10/10 end-all-be-all of gaming, it's quite sad that GTA V was largely forgotten 3 weeks later.

@Suppaman100 said:

It's a freaking satire, that's the part she didn't get.

except "it's satire" can be used to basically justify just about anything that's disagreeable or abhorrently wrong without further question

@LJS9502_basic said:

I disagree. A review should be about the game....not political statements.

when treating women like equals with basic human respect is some sort of political agenda, that's where i facepalm.

Wow just wow. Here's a newsflash....video games ARE NOT...I repeat NOT real life. There is no woman who was disrespected in a video game.

#19 Posted by worknow222 (1399 posts) -

Reviews are never right nor are that wrong, they are for those that agree with ones opinion and wrong for those that dont

#20 Posted by lostrib (34236 posts) -

Reviews are never right nor are that wrong, they are for those that agree with ones opinion and wrong for those that dont

they can be wrong

#21 Posted by Krelian-co (10359 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@worknow222 said:

Reviews are never right nor are that wrong, they are for those that agree with ones opinion and wrong for those that dont

they can be wrong

aka mcshea's reviews.

#22 Posted by lostrib (34236 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@worknow222 said:

Reviews are never right nor are that wrong, they are for those that agree with ones opinion and wrong for those that dont

they can be wrong

aka mcshea's reviews.

I was thinking more along the lines of the original GS Natural Selection 2 review which was factually inaccurate

#23 Edited by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -

How do they behave inconsistently?

@drekula2 said:

3. The characters do behave inconsistently (and it does cripple the narrative, which struggles between silly and serious)

#24 Edited by trugs26 (5287 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

@trugs26 said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

I disagree. A review should be about the game....not political statements. Frankly.....when a world is created....be it movie or game....there will be actions which we may find objectionable. But the review should NOT focus on that. If someone has a problem with some "worlds"...then maybe they shouldn't get involved with it.

In other words...if you can't keep your personal agenda out of the review....you are not best suited to do that review.

But why? A review means to look at and analyse the product. This doesn't imply objectiveness. Some reviews try to be (e.g Eurogamer's tech analysis), and some reviews are partial (Eurogamer's scored reviews - much like every other major website). But whose to say which is the right way? You? What's your reasoning?

Most reviews are partially objective. It's easier for humans to gauge it that way too and makes for a more interesting read.

On this specific case of GTA5, she observed a political issue in her analysis. This is still a review, it's not wrong. It's up to you, the reader, to judge whether or not it's worth your time. It doesn't mean she shouldn't do it altogether - other people may find this observation useful and worth considering when they want to purchase the game.

I want to know if a game is worth purchasing. If it's broken....how the graphics stack up. Not political commentary from a reviewer. I'm actually an intelligent adult and I know what to expect with GTA. It's not like this is the first game created. It's a series of games. It kind of insults my intelligence to read rants about the world created.

But even if it were the first game in the series....it's okay to say what kind of world it is...but NOT use a personal opinion of the content to rate the game. You're not a good reviewer if you can't keep personal opinion at least to a minimum.....though it should be object.

I don't really like racing games. They are boring. But if I were to be paid to review a game in that genre...then I have to look at how well it recreates that world...what works and what doesn't....and NOT base my score on my preference.

You're explaining a review that suits you. You shouldn't expect every review to be like this. Some people are interested on the political message of a game. This is highly subjective, and if say, someone doesn't want their kids who play games that portrays women a certain way, then this opinion from the reviewer is useful information. The reader may or may not agree with the reviewer's opinion, but at least the reader can read up on the issue (from other reviews, etc.)

Again, you're looking for a specific kind of review. There are plenty out there, and as an intelligent adult, you should be reading more than one review, if the review is important. This alleviates personal bias to an aggregate opinion on the matter. Further, you can look for specific reviewers that you personally like (e.g Reviewer X at IGN does the kind of review I like, or the team at GiantBomb tends to do the reviews I like). But they all shouldn't change their reviewing style because of what you personally want.

The car racing example, you described a legitimate reviewing style. If you don't like it, move on to another reviewer/site.

#25 Posted by DocSanchez (1559 posts) -

It's like me reviewing a nascar game and reviewing it 2/10 because I don't like the sport. No. Personal politics don't belong in the game review. Not to mention, find me a segment of society in GTA which escapes from having the crap taken out of it. Carolyn is a hypocrite in that regard because she would single out women for special protection. This site has gone obsessed over it recently. They need to give it a rest. The score was if anything generous, but keep your personal agendas OUT.

#26 Edited by TrappedInABox91 (520 posts) -

She gave it a 9/10, but some morons wanted her fired lol Like her opinion beat the shit out of your mother or something. GTA 5 is not perfect, deal with it.

#27 Edited by organic_machine (9685 posts) -

See here's the thing and here's why I think Carolyn is great:

There's no pretense of "This is objective truth." She simply says "This is my experience playing the game. This is how I felt about it." There's no nonsense, to silly attempts at impossible impartiality. Just raw and honest opinion.

#28 Edited by joel_c17 (2826 posts) -

It was a good game. Somewhere between 8-9

#29 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150278 posts) -

@trugs26 said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@trugs26 said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

I disagree. A review should be about the game....not political statements. Frankly.....when a world is created....be it movie or game....there will be actions which we may find objectionable. But the review should NOT focus on that. If someone has a problem with some "worlds"...then maybe they shouldn't get involved with it.

In other words...if you can't keep your personal agenda out of the review....you are not best suited to do that review.

But why? A review means to look at and analyse the product. This doesn't imply objectiveness. Some reviews try to be (e.g Eurogamer's tech analysis), and some reviews are partial (Eurogamer's scored reviews - much like every other major website). But whose to say which is the right way? You? What's your reasoning?

Most reviews are partially objective. It's easier for humans to gauge it that way too and makes for a more interesting read.

On this specific case of GTA5, she observed a political issue in her analysis. This is still a review, it's not wrong. It's up to you, the reader, to judge whether or not it's worth your time. It doesn't mean she shouldn't do it altogether - other people may find this observation useful and worth considering when they want to purchase the game.

I want to know if a game is worth purchasing. If it's broken....how the graphics stack up. Not political commentary from a reviewer. I'm actually an intelligent adult and I know what to expect with GTA. It's not like this is the first game created. It's a series of games. It kind of insults my intelligence to read rants about the world created.

But even if it were the first game in the series....it's okay to say what kind of world it is...but NOT use a personal opinion of the content to rate the game. You're not a good reviewer if you can't keep personal opinion at least to a minimum.....though it should be object.

I don't really like racing games. They are boring. But if I were to be paid to review a game in that genre...then I have to look at how well it recreates that world...what works and what doesn't....and NOT base my score on my preference.

You're explaining a review that suits you. You shouldn't expect every review to be like this. Some people are interested on the political message of a game. This is highly subjective, and if say, someone doesn't want their kids who play games that portrays women a certain way, then this opinion from the reviewer is useful information. The reader may or may not agree with the reviewer's opinion, but at least the reader can read up on the issue (from other reviews, etc.)

Again, you're looking for a specific kind of review. There are plenty out there, and as an intelligent adult, you should be reading more than one review, if the review is important. This alleviates personal bias to an aggregate opinion on the matter. Further, you can look for specific reviewers that you personally like (e.g Reviewer X at IGN does the kind of review I like, or the team at GiantBomb tends to do the reviews I like). But they all shouldn't change their reviewing style because of what you personally want.

The car racing example, you described a legitimate reviewing style. If you don't like it, move on to another reviewer/site.

Bull shit. People don't want to read damn political agendas when they want to know how a game plays.

As for parents...hey I bet they can read the game box to see what the game includes. Isn't that a new idea. Well...apparently to you it is.

I have never met anyone....and I doubt many exist...that want political commentary in game reviews. But if you're so sure they exist....I would like some links.

#30 Posted by Pffrbt (6527 posts) -

It's a freaking satire, that's the part she didn't get.

I'm pretty sure she got it. It's just not funny or well done. It's all incredibly hamfisted and has nothing insightful to say.

#31 Edited by Krelian-co (10359 posts) -

@organic_machine said:

See here's the thing and here's why I think Carolyn is great:

There's no pretense of "This is objective truth." She simply says "This is my experience playing the game. This is how I felt about it." There's no nonsense, to silly attempts at impossible impartiality. Just raw and honest opinion.

she shouldn't be reviewing, it's obvious her experience is largely affected by a feminist point of view even when the game is a satire about everything, not just superficial women. Why bring that political point of view to games and reviews?

#32 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

So....... What about gameplay ?

#33 Posted by LegatoSkyheart (24844 posts) -

If you're playing Grand Theft Auto expecting Equal Rights for All you're playing it wrong.

Grand Theft Auto is not a game for that kind of thing.

Grand Theft Auto 5 is not a 10/10, but neither was GTA IV but hey that got a 10/10 didn't it?

I thought the Characters were great in this game.

and there's always Political satire in Grand Theft Auto.

#34 Posted by Pffrbt (6527 posts) -

@organic_machine said:

See here's the thing and here's why I think Carolyn is great:

There's no pretense of "This is objective truth." She simply says "This is my experience playing the game. This is how I felt about it." There's no nonsense, to silly attempts at impossible impartiality. Just raw and honest opinion.

she shouldn't be reviewing, it's obvious her experience is largely affected by a feminist point of view even when the game is a satire about everything, not just superficial women. Why bring that political point of view to games and reviews?

That isn't a political point of view and I don't seen the problem with a person reviewing a game while having that attitude.

#35 Edited by LJS9502_basic (150278 posts) -

@Pffrbt said:

@Krelian-co said:

@organic_machine said:

See here's the thing and here's why I think Carolyn is great:

There's no pretense of "This is objective truth." She simply says "This is my experience playing the game. This is how I felt about it." There's no nonsense, to silly attempts at impossible impartiality. Just raw and honest opinion.

she shouldn't be reviewing, it's obvious her experience is largely affected by a feminist point of view even when the game is a satire about everything, not just superficial women. Why bring that political point of view to games and reviews?

That isn't a political point of view and I don't seen the problem with a person reviewing a game while having that attitude.

It kind of is a political point of view.....

#36 Edited by organic_machine (9685 posts) -

@Krelian-co said:

@organic_machine said:

See here's the thing and here's why I think Carolyn is great:

There's no pretense of "This is objective truth." She simply says "This is my experience playing the game. This is how I felt about it." There's no nonsense, to silly attempts at impossible impartiality. Just raw and honest opinion.

she shouldn't be reviewing, it's obvious her experience is largely affected by a feminist point of view even when the game is a satire about everything, not just superficial women. Why bring that political point of view to games and reviews?

Why bring that point of view to reviews? Because that's how she felt while playing the game. You can disagree with her viewpoint, and that is totally fine, but for her to NOT say how she felt while playing it would be dishonest.

The best thing to do as a reviewer is be honest with how your experience was. No false praise for mega-publishers, just honest opinion. Agree or disagree, I would rather read a Carolyn review than anything at IGN.

#37 Posted by Pffrbt (6527 posts) -

So....... What about gameplay ?

There almost is none. Drive from point A to point B over and over again while characters yell at you and you watch bad cutscenes about unlikable people. Occasionally do missions that mostly involve driving somewhere while the game tries constantly to instantly fail you for doing anything even slightly out of the way.

Sometimes there's cover shooting segments with auto-aim, removing what little challenge or gameplay there is in third person cover shooters.

Attempt to mess around and have fun in an open world while playing as characters that have the mortality of a wet paper bag,

#38 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150278 posts) -

@Krelian-co said:

@organic_machine said:

See here's the thing and here's why I think Carolyn is great:

There's no pretense of "This is objective truth." She simply says "This is my experience playing the game. This is how I felt about it." There's no nonsense, to silly attempts at impossible impartiality. Just raw and honest opinion.

she shouldn't be reviewing, it's obvious her experience is largely affected by a feminist point of view even when the game is a satire about everything, not just superficial women. Why bring that political point of view to games and reviews?

Why bring that point of view to reviews? Because that's how she felt while playing the game. You can disagree with her viewpoint, and that is totally fine, but for her to NOT say how she felt while playing it would be dishonest.

The best thing to do as a reviewer is be honest with how your experience was. No false praise for mega-publishers, just honest opinion. Agree or disagree, I would rather read a Carolyn review than anything at IGN.

When did reviews become about how someone "felt" and not the game? I think it's more dishonest to post personal feelings when people want to know about replay, gameplay, graphics etc.

#39 Posted by Krelian-co (10359 posts) -

@Pffrbt said:

@Krelian-co said:

@organic_machine said:

See here's the thing and here's why I think Carolyn is great:

There's no pretense of "This is objective truth." She simply says "This is my experience playing the game. This is how I felt about it." There's no nonsense, to silly attempts at impossible impartiality. Just raw and honest opinion.

she shouldn't be reviewing, it's obvious her experience is largely affected by a feminist point of view even when the game is a satire about everything, not just superficial women. Why bring that political point of view to games and reviews?

That isn't a political point of view and I don't seen the problem with a person reviewing a game while having that attitude.

because this game makes fun of black, redneck, drug addicts, fbi corrupt agents, racists and rich white people stereotypes among many others, YET she only had problems with the female stereotypes they were mocking, it's obvious she as many times in her reviews is letting her political point of views affect the review itself, specially when it was uncalled for since its an obvious satire, she as many annoying feminists think female cannot be addressed in any type of media unless its to show how strong and independent they are! because you know, if is anything other than that is wrong, there are no bad or superficial woman in real life.

#40 Posted by organic_machine (9685 posts) -

When did reviews become about how someone "felt" and not the game? I think it's more dishonest to post personal feelings when people want to know about replay, gameplay, graphics etc.

Times have changed. Getting information on games is totally different now than how it used to be. "Reviews," as they have traditionally been, are irrelevant. Anyone who knows how to use Google can find out objective information about a game. Reviews as an objective resource just aren't necessary anymore.

The question everyone wants to know is this: Will I enjoy this game? That's where I think Carolyn's reviews shine. They don't pretend to be anything more than a personal experience with the game. No BS.

#41 Posted by Krelian-co (10359 posts) -

@organic_machine said:

@Krelian-co said:

@organic_machine said:

See here's the thing and here's why I think Carolyn is great:

There's no pretense of "This is objective truth." She simply says "This is my experience playing the game. This is how I felt about it." There's no nonsense, to silly attempts at impossible impartiality. Just raw and honest opinion.

she shouldn't be reviewing, it's obvious her experience is largely affected by a feminist point of view even when the game is a satire about everything, not just superficial women. Why bring that political point of view to games and reviews?

Why bring that point of view to reviews? Because that's how she felt while playing the game. You can disagree with her viewpoint, and that is totally fine, but for her to NOT say how she felt while playing it would be dishonest.

The best thing to do as a reviewer is be honest with how your experience was. No false praise for mega-publishers, just honest opinion. Agree or disagree, I would rather read a Carolyn review than anything at IGN.

When did reviews become about how someone "felt" and not the game? I think it's more dishonest to post personal feelings when people want to know about replay, gameplay, graphics etc.

thanks for summing it up, specially when that person "experience" almost always has anything to do with feminism.

#42 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150278 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

When did reviews become about how someone "felt" and not the game? I think it's more dishonest to post personal feelings when people want to know about replay, gameplay, graphics etc.

Times have changed. Getting information on games is totally different now than how it used to be. "Reviews," as they have traditionally been, are irrelevant. Anyone who knows how to use Google can find out objective information about a game. Reviews as an objective resource just aren't necessary anymore.

The question everyone wants to know is this: Will I enjoy this game? That's where I think Carolyn's reviews shine. They don't pretend to be anything more than a personal experience with the game. No BS.

WTF.....no times haven't changed. Reviews are still supposed to be reviews. And frankly it's laughable that you think because some reviewer liked a game that means you or anyone else will. That's like 6th grade reviews.

I played GTA V. I liked this game. You will too.

Yep....6th grade.

#43 Posted by WTA2k5 (3997 posts) -

I disagree. A review should be about the game....not political statements. Frankly.....when a world is created....be it movie or game....there will be actions which we may find objectionable. But the review should NOT focus on that. If someone has a problem with some "worlds"...then maybe they shouldn't get involved with it.

In other words...if you can't keep your personal agenda out of the review....you are not best suited to do that review.

This sort of mindset confounds me. Grand Theft Auto V is a game that makes political statements. Lots of them. All the time. And they're pretty much all misguided and stupid. Why on earth would a reviewer not touch on a fundamental facet of the game they're writing about and, you know, offer their opinions on it?

#44 Edited by worknow222 (1399 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@worknow222 said:

Reviews are never right nor are that wrong, they are for those that agree with ones opinion and wrong for those that dont

they can be wrong

A review is not fact, Think of it like this If you like a game then you like it, in your mind it's a great game and you enjoy it you have fun you cant see the flaws or you can and you just don't care , for those that hate the game then in there mind they hate it they didn't enjoy what you enjoyed and cant see past flaws, now many will like and hate that game but since it's opinion and opinion cant be fact, you liking the game is just that, someone hating the game is just that, no need to care or fight because in the end someone will always hate and someone will always like in whatever way they think.........................Anyone who can understand this.....................have a cookie (hands cookie)

#45 Posted by Desmonic (13382 posts) -

@drekula2 said:

when treating women like equals with basic human respect is some sort of political agenda, that's where i facepalm.

Yeah, because men are represented as such gallant examples of society in that game right?

She'd have a point if women were critized and men were not. Unfortunately for her that does not happen, both sexes and basically any race present within the game gets mocked and ridiculed. Along various religions.

Don't like that type of humor? Don't buy it. Simple as that.

#46 Edited by Krelian-co (10359 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

@organic_machine said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

When did reviews become about how someone "felt" and not the game? I think it's more dishonest to post personal feelings when people want to know about replay, gameplay, graphics etc.

Times have changed. Getting information on games is totally different now than how it used to be. "Reviews," as they have traditionally been, are irrelevant. Anyone who knows how to use Google can find out objective information about a game. Reviews as an objective resource just aren't necessary anymore.

The question everyone wants to know is this: Will I enjoy this game? That's where I think Carolyn's reviews shine. They don't pretend to be anything more than a personal experience with the game. No BS.

WTF.....no times haven't changed. Reviews are still supposed to be reviews. And frankly it's laughable that you think because some reviewer liked a game that means you or anyone else will. That's like 6th grade reviews.

I played GTA V. I liked this game. You will too.

Yep....6th grade.

no they should be about, graphics are like this, gameplay is like that, story is about this, it has x and y problems, etc.

I don't want reviews to be: they don't treat woman with respect!!!!!! i know the whole gta series is supossed to be a joke but HOW DARE THEY MOCK WOMAN, WOMAN CANNOT BE CRITIZED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE!

ign's review was made by a woman and i don't see her whinning about it, maybe she is smarter to recognize satire and enjoy a good laugh?

Quoting her: "Everything about it drips satire: it rips into the Millennial generation, celebrities, the far right, the far left, the middle class, the media... Nothing is safe from Rockstar’s sharp tongue, including modern video games. "

Seems a far better reviewer IMHO.

#47 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150278 posts) -

@WTA2k5 said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

I disagree. A review should be about the game....not political statements. Frankly.....when a world is created....be it movie or game....there will be actions which we may find objectionable. But the review should NOT focus on that. If someone has a problem with some "worlds"...then maybe they shouldn't get involved with it.

In other words...if you can't keep your personal agenda out of the review....you are not best suited to do that review.

This sort of mindset confounds me. Grand Theft Auto V is a game that makes political statements. Lots of them. All the time. And they're pretty much all misguided and stupid. Why on earth would a reviewer not touch on a fundamental facet of the game they're writing about and, you know, offer their opinions on it?

You know what confounds me? People that expect GTA to be serious. People that don't understand that for good or ill...movies, book, and games create worlds that might not have the best characters...in fact....many times they are flawed.

#48 Edited by NathanDrakeSwag (5127 posts) -

That review was a joke. The game is a 10/10 in my book.

#49 Edited by organic_machine (9685 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

WTF.....no times haven't changed. Reviews are still supposed to be reviews. And frankly it's laughable that you think because some reviewer liked a game that means you or anyone else will. That's like 6th grade reviews.

I played GTA V. I liked this game. You will too.

Yep....6th grade.

That's not what I said and you know it.

Will I like this game? Well let's see what others thought of it. This guy liked it: WHY did he like it? This guy hated it: WHY did he hate it? What do I like?

If someone who has similar tastes and experiences as me likes a certain game that I have not played, I'm more inclined to listen. Getting "objective" results in praise for polished but shallow big budget games. Games which I have ZERO interest in.

#50 Edited by LJS9502_basic (150278 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

WTF.....no times haven't changed. Reviews are still supposed to be reviews. And frankly it's laughable that you think because some reviewer liked a game that means you or anyone else will. That's like 6th grade reviews.

I played GTA V. I liked this game. You will too.

Yep....6th grade.

That's not what I said and you know it.

Will I like this game? Well let's see what others thought of it. This guy liked it: WHY did he like it? This guy hated it: WHY did he hate it? What do I like?

If someone who has similar tastes and experiences as me likes a certain game that I have not played, I'm more inclined to listen. Getting "objective" results in praise for polished but shallow big budget games. Games which I have ZERO interest in.

I paraphrased what you basically said. You said you need someone to tell you they liked a game. That's kind of sad dude.