- Metal Gear Solid 4 deserves 5.0, more cutscenes than gameplay and those cutscenes are full of repetitive dialouge. Don't mean to be rude, but in the written review on Gamespot, Kevin VanOrd says that Metal Gear Solid 4 has 'A brillant mixture of storytelling and gameplay', he is clearly sucking Hideo Kojima's dick to say that.
- Heavy Rain deserves 6.0, itis overrated and poorly executed, nothing can make brushing your teeth or changing babies engaging or enjoyable.
- Saints Row The Third deserves 9.5 and Game of the Year 2011.
- Saints Row 2 deserves 9.5 and Game of the Year 2008.
- Skate 3 is not 'more of the same', it deserves 9.5.
- Far Cry 2 is a missunderstood superb game that deserves 9.0.
- Mafia II is a missunderstood masterpeice that deserves a 10.
- Splinter Cell Conviction and Resident Evil 5 are the biggest 'screw you's to the original fanbase in gaming history (that's not to mention that Resident Evil 5 was garbage regardless), Conviction deserves 6.0 and Resident Evil 5 deserves 3.5.
- The original Assassin's Creed is not repetitive.
- Third person is better than first person.
- Gameplay matters more than story.
- Just Cause 2 deserves a 9.5 and a Game of the Year 2010 nomination.
- Mass Effect 2 is boring, people need to learn that grea.
- Driv3r was a good game last generation, it deserved an 8.0.
- The Saboteur is a superb game that deserves a 9.0, there is nothing wrong with the controls and that's coming from someone who gets annoyed easily due to bad game controls.
- Single player matters more than multiplayer.
- The FIFA games are copy and paste and are nothing more than pay checks for EA.
- The PSP is better than the Nintendo DS, both are great handhelds though.
- Gran Turismo 5 is not dissapointing, it deserves 9.0.
- Uncharted 3 is just as good as Uncharted 2, both games deserve 10.
- A game should receive a Game of the Year award if it is the most fun game of the year, not the most original game or the game with the best story.
- A lot of exclusives are overrated, most of the time, if a game is an an exclusive, it will receive critical acclaim.
- The Nintendo 64 controller is the worst designed controller in gaming history.
- Not every game with third-person shooting needs a cover system.
- The original Prototype is better then the original InFamous but InFamous 2 is better than Prototype 2.
- Duke Nukem Forever is FUN, and an the end of the day, that is all that matters.
- Hitman Absolution deserved 9/10.
- Tomb Raider (2013) deserved 10/10.
- Grand Theft Auto V is better than GTA San Andreas and it is a hell of a lot better than Grand Theft Auto IV.
- There will come a time where games have no gameplay and all or only have one hour of sh*t gameplay and critics will reward said games 10/10 ratings.
The only reason I look at reviews is to get an idea of what's in the game, but there are sometimes when you just can't believe how dumb a critic may be and that is why many people make threads on the issue. For example, almost all (if not all) critics think the games story is the one factor that contributes towards a games score, it doesn't matter how sh*t the gameplay is, if the story is great, the game can score a 10/10. Some critics also tell flat out lies in reviews, for example, Kevin VanOrd said that "A brilliant mixture of storytelling and gameplay". Also, games are underrated by critics just for being fun nowadays.
Sadly I see a dark future for 'gaming', just take a look at how thins were this generation, everyone was like 'story this' or 'story that', not 'gameplay' this or 'gameplay' that, this gave developers a perfect opportunity to get good reception for lazy game design, just take a look at some of the most critically acclaimed 'games' this generation:
- Metal Gear Solid 4: 4 hours of actual gameplay and 16 hours of repetitive cutscenes which drag on coupled with (now closed) multiplayer where you had to pay for extras which makes Metal Gear Solid 4 the worst value for money game this generation.
- Mass Effect 2: Crappy repetitive level design with stale combat and lackluster character customization options. Sure we got a 32 hour campaign, but there is no point when the game is that repetitive.
- Heavy Rain: A game entirely up of mostly mundane activities, I know that Heavy Rain is meant to be something different but nothing can make brushing your teeth engaging.
In the not to distant future, we will be lucky to even have any gameplay at all, yet critics will still praise the 'games' just because of the story. I will go as far to say that games will be underrated just for having long campaigns and engaging gameplay, after all, games are already underrated for being fun.
- One that assess all aspects of a game when rating it, with gameplay contributing to most of the score.
- One that doens't take points off an open world game with vehicles and weapons just because it doesn't have the GTA logo on the boxart.
- One that doesn't give a game a 9 or 10 just because it has a great story. In other words, good critics don't exist.
- One that doesn't put clear lies in a review, for example, when Kevin VanOrd said that Metal Gear Solid 4 had 'A brilliant mixture of storytelling and gameplay'
In other words, good critics don't exist.
Hopefully Rockstar will incorporates these features in future updates:
- I wish the 747 was available in multiplayer.
- I wish the Train was driveable in multiplayer (and also free roam single player)
- I wish the Tram was driveable in both multiplayer and singeplayer.
- Customizable/Upgradable ampartments.
- I was the Blimp was available in mulitplayer.
One that assess all aspects of a game when rating it, with gameplay contributing to most of the score, not one that doens't take points off an open world game with vehicles and weapons just because it doesn't have the GTA logo on the boxart, and one that doesn't give a game a 9 or 10 just because it has a great story. In other words, good critics don't exist.
Grand Theft Auto V (followed by San Andreas), GTA 5 is a combination of everything that fans (well most fans) love about the series, it's the game that Rockstar has been aiming for since 1997, people can say that GTA V has been 4 years in the making, but it's been 16 years in the making.
Just a quick summary:
- GTA III: 3D Innovation
- GTA Vice City: Experimenting with new features to cram into one game
- GTA San Andreas: All the features imaginable
- GTA IV: Yeah, I don't know what happened there
- GTA V: Combination of all the good from previous titles.
GTA V is the best, but as mentioned, GTA III, VC and SA will always be nostalgic (I will always remember my many failed attempts at flying the Dodo in GTA III).
Two new standalone expansions, one set in San Fierro and the other in Las Venturas, they would be more expensive than the expansions we got with GTA IV but it would be worth it. Casino heists in the Venturas DLC would be excellent. New vehicles they need to add includes trains (for free roam, not just one mission), smaller passenger jets, UFOs (make them spawn in the same way as they do in GTA V except make them flyable), skimmer, the cargo plane from the minor turbulance mission for free roam, hunter, etc. New weapons they need to add include the chainsaw, nailgun, more melee weapons etc.
Another problem with games which rely on narrative is the fact that the critics praise the story and ignore issues with gameplay, the games that undeservingly received the GOTY award in 2008 and 2010 are prime examples:
"giving you control only at times when it doesn't want to shove your script writing and narrative down your throat" sums up what I think about Metal Gear Solid 4, 16 hours of cutscenes and 4 hours of gameplay is awful, yet no critics complain about it. At least what little gameplay there is, is good
"a title that I would have preferred to watch, not play, the act of playing it lessened the overall experience" sums up how I feel about Mass Effect 2, the storytelling was great, what you didn't talk about much was the decline of quality of gameplay mechanics, yet critics don't complain about it, they praise the game just because of the narrative.