Any review that is published prior to the release date of the game should be tossed out. Publishers and advertising have too much influence on these "early" reviews. This is for all big games, not just GTA.

graphics 6.5 shut up get banned

I whole heartedly endorse this thread post or product.

Personally, I loved Halo 3. Sure it didn't have anything revolutionary gameplay wise, but what more could you add to the BEST Console FPS engine (at the time) apart from new weapons/vehicles.  Then there's the complaint that  the graphics are just Halo 2.5, did people not notice that you can record and view EVERYTHING you play from ANY angle? Sure it may not have pushed the boundaries, but this game would have burnt in hell with the gamers if each and every polygon did not look good because if Bungie was so arrogant to add this kind of feature, the game had to have looked extremely polished.

There is no way in hell you could put that sort of feature in MGS4, CoD4 or Gears and have it look as good consistently like Halo 3 did.

That's what I don't understand, aside from the people in this thread, ALOT of gamers consider GTA4 the greatest game of all time (heck even Game rankings did at one point) and ALOT of gamers consider Halo 3 overrated. BUT they both did the exact same thing as each other, neither of them revolutionised the gameplay from their predecessor and only added un-necessary but still nice to have features (Forge/streaming video VS crappy/unbalance multiplayer). Except one is loved by the masses and the other scorned by the masses (or at least a much larger mass...)

if you dont like gta4, you must be some little kid who likes to play halo. gta4 is amazing, of course not a 10/10, like a 9.5. but dont say its THAT overrated.

Tie between GTA IV and Halo imo, the main difference being that GTA IV had a very good prequel while Halo had a very good sequel!

67? are you serious? by those standards no game this generation is 90.

Is it ok if I endorse your post!? I still think the most fun i've ever had in a FPS is doing an 8v8 forge battle.

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.

I am endorsing this endorsement...

I'd give it a solid 87%.