By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

I'm not saying GTA should have been a revolution in gaming, I'm saying it should have been better then what it is. A game with so many flaws couldn't or shouldn't possibly get a perfect score or even a 9/10. Another point I'm making is how reviewers can support these games when really they should be honest and abide their own principles and review fairly. I'll give you an example:

Last gen we had GTA VC and later we had games come out which also featured sandbox gameplay. Games such as True Crime, Total Overdose and Godfather and Yakuza.

All the above games had a far better story and were better narrative driven, they also had better graphics and were far more enjoyable to play, since the overall package with its offerings was better, the fighting and shooting mechanics were better, the missions and gameplay were better. However, these games were scored down in areas where they were better, yet the GTA VC was marked higher although weaker in these areas.

How can a game which offers less is so many area's score higher? What is the reason or excuse for it? Granted GTAVI is a huge game but the size of the game (map) is not its flaw, it's the overall gameplay offerings.

Soon we will be getting Saintrow 2 on our consoles, a game which is shaping up to be better in every aspect compared to GTAVI and it will be interesting to see how the critics review it.

It almost seems as if R* have the critics paid off. GTAVI is not the only game who gets favored, I believe Manhunt was another overhyped game. It had the most repetitive gameplay ever, yet got good reviews. Something that critics normally complain about; colour palettes that is, things such as this were overlooked. yet another game that came out around the same time- Altered Beast, which had far better gameplay and graphics was slaughtered for it's colour palette. However, both games used more or less the same grey dark gritty colour approach.