When reading reviews on games, I usually go over several reviews from various different sources and then looking at the picture overall I make a choice. However, some games somehow manage to defy the principles set by reviewers and break rules and one of the best known for this is none other then the GTA games.

GRAPHICS - 6.5

when this section is reviewed, critics will talk about polish, what could and could not have been done better, if they are on par with other games in the same genre, how much is going on at the same time and how good the graphics maybe for something such as this and last but not least, quality over quantity.

These rules do not apply to GTA games. graphics on any gta game have been average. Granted the size of the game is quiet big, but does it need to be that big? I have played games such as True Crime, Just Cause, Saints Row, Spiderman and many more and they all seem to be able to do a better job then GTA in terms of graphics. 

Size matters? I don't think so. All I can say is YAkuza and Shenmue. 2 excellent games that prove size does not matter. If you make the game good enough through gameplay and story, then the size of the game can remain small and allow the developers to give the graphics section the extra boost it deserves.

Comparing GTA to its rivals in terms of graphics makes GTA just above average unlike what most critics tend to give it. 

PRESENTATION - 7

Nothing amazing here, but nothing bad either. Its a decent presentation which is simple and easy but nothing that will blow your mind away. Perfect score or high score for this section? Hell no unless you being paid to give extra marks. Again, the game will probably get slightly above average marks.

SOUND - 7

It's average. Nothing here on offer then basics and maybe a little bit more. Where this game probably really shines is the radio Stations and the soundtrack it offers. Which is what possibly saves it from getting an average mark, but is a good soundtrack enough to justify the entire sound section getting great marks? NO! Great and average = above average not Great. 

GAMEPLAY - 6

So much more can be done so much better. True Crime 1+2 had better shooting and fighting gameplay, Godfather had better fighting and shooting gameplay, Total Overdose had better shooting gameplay. Considering shooting is what you do a lot of in GTA, why is it so basic? why is it nothing like it's competitors? 

What narrative is there? It is possibly the highest rated game with the most shallow story as well as barely any narrative that drives the gameplay. The whole gameplay sells on the novelty of being a gangster and being a badboy. Running, jumping, shooting, fighting, driving, walking, climbing and the story are all nothing more then basic or average. So how does this section get high marks?

LIFESPAN - 7

Well a game so average shouldn't really have a lifespan since it has nothing much on offer which is great. Since it isn't narrative driven, what would motivate a gamer to see the game through to the end? Since it hasn't got amazing set pieces or amazing boss fights, what makes you want to play on? It has a million repetitive missions that can be fun so this where the marks come from. Does this mean it should have a perfect score? No of course not. If it has flaws a prefect score cannot be given. It may score high marks, but not full marks.

TOTAL SCORE - 57% Correction it should be 67%

An average game with a lot of untapped potential due to the lack of polish in every section offering players nothing more but basic gameplay experience but trying to sell on quantity rather then quality.  Driving 100 Ford Micras in your life doesn't equate to driving a single Ferrari. Having lived in 100 terraces houses doesn't equate to having lived in the Playboy Mansion. Sleeping with 100 mingers doesn't equate to sleeping with Angelina Jolie. Making a game that is large in scale doesn't equate to making a quality game. 

Do any of you feel the same way?

EDIT - my bad... i calculated the % wrong :S it should be 67%

Maybe not as low as 57%....it deserves a solid 90, just not the 99% that some mags gave it

You're being overly harsh on the game, but it is overrated.

We all know by now that 2K bought the reviews for sites like Gamespot and IGN. The game simply cannot receive so many 10's when there's so much wrong with it.

I'd still rate the game around the 90%, but it's just not a timeless masterpiece.

Sometimes, I think the industry journalists get together and give certain "important" games unanimously high scores, whether they deserve them or not.

SSX, Rouge Leader, Halo, Call of Duty 2, Resistance, and GTA 4 all come to mind.

 Rogue Leader deserved it. That was a classy game!

i would rate the game around 70%, the game is just boring imo. Alot of bugs, under par story, very little variation and the ragdoll thing is just lame.

I'd give 80%. Compared to San Andreas it's piece of crap.

this game dosnt deserve 90+ maybe mid 80s, this game has nothing on san that game ruled

hahaha, i couldn't agree any more. GTA is one of the world's most overrated series, and definitley the most overrated game this gen. its just another crappy remake of the last 8 GTA games. for anyone that wants to argue that, get over it cause you know its true.

i lol'ed when gamespot gave this a 10. we already knew how biased they were.

It´s a good game, not a 10, but definitely a 9. The graphics are awesome and I ´m a pc player, played the GtA VC and SA in the PC, so I say the garphics made a great leap. It´s not the best graphics of the gen, but awesome nonetheless. The gameplay is the almost the same as the other versions. The fun is not as it was in vice city, but still great. Bottom line, is a lesser game than VC, but VC was one of the best games I´ve played, fun, addicting and challenging. You can only hope they get it rigth twice, they didn´t. But that´s always next time. Ah, games with big scope are needed, there are people that like it. I hope next one they get mutiple cities, like Chicago and NY at the same time. (train or airplane connection, of course)