From Carylon's review to Movie Bob to Jim Sterling to the review on Escapist (to more I'm sure) there's a lot of hot-topic discussion about GTA V. What I find funny about all this is while everyone is off discussing things like misogyny, sexism, the villians, the violence, the story, the politics....nobody seems to be talking about how bad the gameplay is.
Yea that's right, we stole all your money baby.
Jim Sterling went on a rant this week in his Jimquisition (check it out on Escapist if you want) about how he relishes playing as the "Villain" for reasons like: The "villain" is typically a more interesting character than the stock "hero." This is all fine and dandy and I actually agree with Jim on this point. Call these three dudes in GTA V the villains, call them the anti-hero's, call them the source of satire, call them the opposite of the classic gaming protagonist, call them whatever you like. It doesn't change the fact that the gameplay is as boring as watching my grandmother make bread from scratch.
Could you scoop that thing up today hunny? I ain't gettin' any younger.
Even if the gameplay isn't as bad as I'm making it out to be, you'd have to be blind to not notice that it's far from perfect. Maybe it all has to do with what game journalists are after these days, or what lights a fire under their rump. Maybe now that they've outgrown their NES days, they're starting to have this notion that games with more "creativity," more "innovation," more of a provocative and original story, more of something that can be called "art" are the most important aspects of gaming and the industry. Frankly (and I've said this before), developers, both big AAA developers and Indies alike, are after this conquest too. It's gotten so bad that nobody is talking about how silly the gameplay of GTA V is. Like, if this game had done far less with the story and was not under the GTA franchise, I'd find it hard to believe it would have scored much higher than what I reviewed it at.
Someone told me once (Yes, people talk to me on occasion) that if these opinions of mine were taken seriously, for instance if game jouranalists didn't find those aspects of gaming mentioned in the former paragraph important, then gaming would never make any progress. Instead it would be stuck in the golden age forever, the age of saving the princess and jumping around on platforms. On the contrary I feel the gaming industry has taken more steps backwards, and more steps in the wrong direction, because of this new found praise of the more modern elements of gaming (the elements that essentially makes games look like movies). GTA V, to me, is a step in the wrong bloody direction. Not because of anything related to the story or the content, but how the darn game actually plays and gets away with being called "perfection." No. This isn't perfection people. This isn't Half-Life. This isn't even close to Super Mario Galaxy. This can't touch Shadow of the Collusus with a 500 mile pole. This isn't a 9.0 or a 10. In GTA V it's too glaring how terrible the controls are, how stupid the A.I is, how boring the missions are.
I'm sorry you had to live to see this.
I don't mean to pick on people who like any particular game that I don't like very much. I'm mainly just writing this because of how certain things are highlighted over others and how there is a serious shift in how people analyze video games today. A good example is The Wonderful 101. Review scores are all over the place because game critics don't know what to think of these types of games anymore. Games that have classic, fun gameplay, cool colors and tacky dialogue. But games like GTA V and The Last of Us, you'll notice that all critics review them alike. They all have the same opinion on them. Because the games were designed with the same paradigm of the people who were reviewing them.