-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Things people liked on release and later called shit or overrated (GTA IV, BioShock Infinite, Dragon Age Inquisition)
- Thread starter BAD
- Start date
As someone who enjoys the dragon age series I have replayed origins multiple times. I've even replayed dragon age 2 a few times because the story beats and missions aren't half bad even if it does reuse maps. Inquisition though? I tried to replay it recently and I couldn't. The big ass hub worlds with mmo busy work quests are incredibly eh. The few quests with anything remotely interesting are few and far in between in these worlds.
And while the party members aren't bad it wasn't enough to deal with these maps.
And while the party members aren't bad it wasn't enough to deal with these maps.
I love Dragon Age Inquisition just as much as ever, the hate the game gets makes me really sad (I do understand it though). GTA IV I was never too fond of, its the only GTA game I got bored of and dropped half way through.
God I hope not.
Having tried and failed to get into the PC port over the past few years, I've pretty much just given up on it. The awfully stiff controls and brown shit filter on everything always ruin the experience for me. It's a pity, because I always hear that it has the best story in the series
Have you ever walked out of a movie and thought, "That was good!" And then had a friend explain to you all the plot holes and problems, and then you re-evaluate your opinion? Being influenced by the "public perception" of a thing is not necessarily a bad thing. Oftentimes, it might make you confront things you otherwise missed or ignored, and in confronting those things, your opinion may change even if you don't go and re experience the subject matter again.
Changing ones opinion on a topic over time is not a bad thing. In fact, it often shows a willingness to engage with opinions beyond your own. I don't agree with the light in which you cast this OP.
Top all of this off with the "hype" driven nature of this whole industry, and I might suggest the truly honest consensus around a game is not the one you get in week 1, but the one you get at year 1. At the very least, pointing at a metacritic score from several years ago as proof of something should only be used for proof of what the critical consensus was at that moment in a fan driven industry.
Changing ones opinion on a topic over time is not a bad thing. In fact, it often shows a willingness to engage with opinions beyond your own. I don't agree with the light in which you cast this OP.
Top all of this off with the "hype" driven nature of this whole industry, and I might suggest the truly honest consensus around a game is not the one you get in week 1, but the one you get at year 1. At the very least, pointing at a metacritic score from several years ago as proof of something should only be used for proof of what the critical consensus was at that moment in a fan driven industry.
Last edited:
People are excited to play a new game when it comes out, after time passes and the novelty wears off they're more likely to realize/admit its faults.
GTA IV was a brilliant game I loved it and the characters a lot. Bioshock infinite was meh I could take it or leave it but it was far from horrible. Dragon Age Inquisition is a horrible game that deserves to be in a dumpster.
Opinions usually transition over time for games but the games you mentioned did have huge sway of opinion over time.
Opinions usually transition over time for games but the games you mentioned did have huge sway of opinion over time.
I think people tend to adopt opinions which aren't theirs on the internet. MGS4 is a perfect example, a game winning 2x the GOTY vote in the old place while a vocal minority condemned it as the worst game in the franchise. The same thing can be said about games which reviewed and sold incredibly well (AC3, Fallout 4, GTA IV etc.). Just some revisionist crap from people who barely played those games, in my opinion.
Depending on your bubble everything is always shit or amazing, there is no middle ground.
Gamers, Rise up.
Gamers, Rise up.
This is never gonna happen for these games, people will always remember how much of a fucking disappointment GTA IV was coming from Vice City and San Andreas.
GTA iv is still to this day the game I consider the most over rated video game of all time. I didn't like it at launch and was blown away by the amount of 10s it received.
I think this is correct. I would add that several high-profile AAA releases in the past decade have been 60+ hour games, and in ways that won't always be picked up in a review thread or OT, hours 60-100 can do as much as 1-60 to shape players' ultimate views of a game.
Separately, there are games and movies where it's fairly easy to predict that initial reviews will take a safe line that bears little resemblance to the public discussion after release.
also this thread is basically demanding either that nobody share their opinion until it's totally finalized or that all media should be extremely simple such that there's nothing to ruminate over or digest
Not sure if it was the public opinion of it that swayed me but I remember being blown away by Bioshock Infinite and then almost completely annoyed by it on the 2nd playthrough.
Sometimes you just are caught up with some other aspect of the game and dont see the glaring flaws until you take another look.
Funnily enough, I had the opposite occur with Bioshock 1. Hated the first playthrough...loved the 2nd one.
Sometimes you just are caught up with some other aspect of the game and dont see the glaring flaws until you take another look.
Funnily enough, I had the opposite occur with Bioshock 1. Hated the first playthrough...loved the 2nd one.
Absolutely worse than 3. It controls poorly, and the additions like the cell phone were poorly thought out and more annoying than fun. 3 is a very tight game, that is missing some notable features that came after, but it was and still is infinitely more playable than 4 and still has the spark of satire that the ps2 era games REALLY embraced.
Infinite was mediocre in 2013 and still is, nowhere near BioShock quality.
Inquisition is not shit by any means
Inquisition is not shit by any means
Popular/acclaimed games I never really liked:
GTAIV - it was far too joyless, self-serious and tedious for my tastes. I don't need the wackiness dialled all the way up like with the Saints Row sequels, but Vice City and San Andreas had a good balance and I didn't like the tone of GTAIV.
Metal Gear Solid 4 - it plays reasonably well as a TPS but the plot is utter shit and from chapter 3 the cutscenes get ridiculous and the level design mostly becomes really weak. It felt like a considerable step back from MGS3.
Shadow of Mordor - I thought it was a reasonably enjoyable game back then and I still think that now. However, having replayed it a year or so back I concluded that the game doesn't need its second map at all, the level design is really basic and borderline poor and the Nemesis system does most of the heavy lifting in keeping people engaged. It's a solid 7.5 out of 10. I never played the sequel.
Bioshock Infinite - I always found this reasonably good, but the main problem was that the gameplay was much shallower than the first game and thus less rewarding. Level design was fairly good although more linear than the first and I really didn't like the plot, which was pretentious and nonsensical.
GTAIV - it was far too joyless, self-serious and tedious for my tastes. I don't need the wackiness dialled all the way up like with the Saints Row sequels, but Vice City and San Andreas had a good balance and I didn't like the tone of GTAIV.
Metal Gear Solid 4 - it plays reasonably well as a TPS but the plot is utter shit and from chapter 3 the cutscenes get ridiculous and the level design mostly becomes really weak. It felt like a considerable step back from MGS3.
Shadow of Mordor - I thought it was a reasonably enjoyable game back then and I still think that now. However, having replayed it a year or so back I concluded that the game doesn't need its second map at all, the level design is really basic and borderline poor and the Nemesis system does most of the heavy lifting in keeping people engaged. It's a solid 7.5 out of 10. I never played the sequel.
Bioshock Infinite - I always found this reasonably good, but the main problem was that the gameplay was much shallower than the first game and thus less rewarding. Level design was fairly good although more linear than the first and I really didn't like the plot, which was pretentious and nonsensical.
gta iv was only publicly loved by gaming sites.
an some die-hards that thought rockstar could do no wrong.
the rest of us, that loved GTA3 and san andreas like myself....were like NOPE!
an some die-hards that thought rockstar could do no wrong.
the rest of us, that loved GTA3 and san andreas like myself....were like NOPE!
Longer you look at something, the more likely you are to see its flaws.
Standards can change and some old games no longer hold up to scrutiny.
The "new" shine can wear off and you have time to reflect on the substance of the game and realize it's not as good as it initially appeared.
You can like a game at first, then later on think it's not as good. Minds can change.
Standards can change and some old games no longer hold up to scrutiny.
The "new" shine can wear off and you have time to reflect on the substance of the game and realize it's not as good as it initially appeared.
You can like a game at first, then later on think it's not as good. Minds can change.
I mean, I think generally, this is happening:
Like, I enjoyed The Last Jedi. A lot! But I don't post in threads about it because I don't give a shit. It's a movie - it doesn't need me to defend its honor.
This is it.
It's an illusion that these games are now hated, it's just a loud minor group of people that are still cranky for some reason that a game they didn't like was praised so much.
It'll happen to Zelda BOTW, Bloodborne, RDR2, TLOU, The Outer Worlds, FF7R, Cyberpunk, ect etc as well, eventually.
I think you're forgetting to consider the fact that initial impressions can also be unreliable due to being swept up in hype, as well as the tendency to convince ourselves that what we're experiencing is as good as we hoped. Of course this isn't always the case and games years can stand the test of time. But I've had it happen countless times with movies and games, where my initial reaction was nothing but high praise. It wasn't until some time later that I would re-evaluate my thoughts and feelings, only to find that I had a better grasp of how much I enjoyed something.
But I'll repeat: This isn't always the case and lots of times initial impressions are long-lasting, where games or movies don't require the initial hype in order to sustain itself - they're that good to a lot of us, no matter how old they are.
But I'll repeat: This isn't always the case and lots of times initial impressions are long-lasting, where games or movies don't require the initial hype in order to sustain itself - they're that good to a lot of us, no matter how old they are.
I'd say it's likely a mix. On top of hype waning giving more space for critics to be heard, hype waning is a good way for people who really liked a thing to really start to reconsider it in a different light.
Bioshock Infinite was a game I generally didn't even care that much for at launch, but Bioshock 1 was a game I was massively hyped for leading into launch (I imagine the only demos I played more than its demo were the major shareware demos back in the 90s). Once the hype had finally waned (and it took a couple years!), I started to think less of the game because of how it was a step down in a lot of ways from their previous game in that style (which my love of System Shock 2 is why I was so willing to embrace the hype for Bioshock). Then Bioshock Infinite being what it was made me rethink even more about Bioshock that soured me even more on it.
So, yeah, no massive pivoting or conspiracy there. Just something slowly happening over time.
It may seem like sentiment is overwhelmingly negative, so much so that it called in to question past GOTY winners. The old place forced a revote years later for MGS4.
And yet MGS4 still won again, people who are negative just tend to speak louder unfortunately.
MGS4 is still a very dumb and bad game btw.
And yet MGS4 still won again, people who are negative just tend to speak louder unfortunately.
MGS4 is still a very dumb and bad game btw.
IV was dark and fantastic, especially how the introduced online gameplay.
I think Infinite was amazing. The art, the story and characters.
Inquisition might be overrated because it was the first big RPG on new consoles.
I think Infinite was amazing. The art, the story and characters.
Inquisition might be overrated because it was the first big RPG on new consoles.
IMO I saw this happen with Skyrim a bit. Though to be fair to the critics of that game -- I think if you re-release a game you are bound to bring all the modern criticisms that come with that.
Personally I think it's kind of because... talking about criticism/what you hate provokes more overall conversation than talking about what you like. It's hard to argue/debate with someone who likes something without it turning to insults. It feels a lot easier to argue/debate about why you dislike something, because oftentimes those discussions are based around things that are treated outside of taste (i.e. the battle system was flawed at its design, the game lacked content, the graphics were outdated, etc.).
Granted, all of those are just subjective opinions too. It just feels like an easier conversation to have, to me at least.
Personally I think it's kind of because... talking about criticism/what you hate provokes more overall conversation than talking about what you like. It's hard to argue/debate with someone who likes something without it turning to insults. It feels a lot easier to argue/debate about why you dislike something, because oftentimes those discussions are based around things that are treated outside of taste (i.e. the battle system was flawed at its design, the game lacked content, the graphics were outdated, etc.).
Granted, all of those are just subjective opinions too. It just feels like an easier conversation to have, to me at least.
Is it just me or was every single plasmid in Bioshock Infinite just "press for AOE, hold for trap"?
edit: Sorry, 'vigor'
edit: Sorry, 'vigor'
This sounds like fallout 4. At release people were losing their minds over it and though I know it has plenty of people who like it it feels like the overall sentiment these days is negative.
GTAIV is still amazing in some aspects -- the way its world is constructed is absolutely top-notch, and the PC version still somehow looks amazing today, but it also has way too many niggling flaws that got ignored upon release and still get ignored today. It controls like dogshit, especially on consoles. The way it handles combat and continues in general was annoying and antiquated even at the time. In 2008 I loved running around in that world but hated actually playing the game, and it's the same with Red Dead II now.
BioShock Infinite seemed like it was gonna touch on interesting themes at first, and it was coming off the first two BioShock games, but the further I got into it the more I realized it was just a regular AAA FPS. The game is actually kind of full of itself and in the end is way more bland than BioShock 1 or 2 in terms of both gameplay and story.
I still haven't played much Dragon Age Inqusition but from what I can understand, while the main quest is legitimately good, a big reason it got GOTY awards in 2014 is because it was the first significant RPG for this hardware generation. People snapped back hard when Witcher 3 came out the next year.
BioShock Infinite seemed like it was gonna touch on interesting themes at first, and it was coming off the first two BioShock games, but the further I got into it the more I realized it was just a regular AAA FPS. The game is actually kind of full of itself and in the end is way more bland than BioShock 1 or 2 in terms of both gameplay and story.
I still haven't played much Dragon Age Inqusition but from what I can understand, while the main quest is legitimately good, a big reason it got GOTY awards in 2014 is because it was the first significant RPG for this hardware generation. People snapped back hard when Witcher 3 came out the next year.
I never really liked Infinite compared to BioShock 1 and 2 just because of how different of an experience it was. I preferred the System Shock layout of 1 and 2 with a bit of exploration.
Infinite just felt like a game from a different series and that's fine but it wasn't really for me.
Definitely doesn't deserve to be called shit though, the game was fine.
I think Dragon Age Inquisition got overshadowed by Witcher 3 which had more better side quests and Bioshock Infinite overshadowed by Last of Us which also had horror and daughter/father type relationship.
I personally enjoyed all those games for much different reasons, but the wind got taken out of their sails. I also argue that GTA IV got surpassed by competition such as some of the Saint's Row games or Sleeping Dogs, it sold easily the most but didn't feel the most essential in the more dedicated communities. Even if you preferred the more cartoony GTAs or the more grounded take, it didn't stand the test of time for a lot of us. I wouldn't mind replaying The Ballad of Gay Tony which had the best aspects of the game in a shorter play through but wouldn't return to the original game.
I wouldn't like to disparage other people opinions and say some are overrating them but I believe if they were reflected the superlative reviews, they would have aged better.
I personally enjoyed all those games for much different reasons, but the wind got taken out of their sails. I also argue that GTA IV got surpassed by competition such as some of the Saint's Row games or Sleeping Dogs, it sold easily the most but didn't feel the most essential in the more dedicated communities. Even if you preferred the more cartoony GTAs or the more grounded take, it didn't stand the test of time for a lot of us. I wouldn't mind replaying The Ballad of Gay Tony which had the best aspects of the game in a shorter play through but wouldn't return to the original game.
I wouldn't like to disparage other people opinions and say some are overrating them but I believe if they were reflected the superlative reviews, they would have aged better.
I always felt the community were never particularly hot on those 3 games and the discrepancy came from bizarrely inflated review scores rather than fan reception changing over time. I think Phantom Pain could be added to that group as well.
I remember on a message board I used to frequent someone had a thread titled "GTA IV is overrated" 2 months after the game was released. He got called out and piled on for it. Yet, his thoughts and criticisms on the game permeated throughout the gaming community at large years later. Which kinda fascinates me to be honest.
I have that opinion on both GTAIV and BioShock Infinite.
I was *so hyped* for GTAIV, as GTA:SA was probably my favorite game of all time. I was ready for a return to NYC, ready for a grittier story, ready for this fresh immigrant's tale in New York. When I first got GTAIV, I loved it immediately, the weightier physics were fine by me, the gunplay was fine -- improved from SA though behind other games, but fine, and I was super excited to play it. My initial impressions were high, I thought the story was interesting at first.
But then the more I played it, the more I soured on the game. The world was largely empty, with nothing to do, the story was uninteresting. The main antagonist, far from being the greatest antagonist of any game up to that point (Officer Tenpenny, with Samuel L Jackson's stellar performance in San Andreas), didn't exist in GTAIV. There was one bad guy you were going for for half the story, then you get him, and then... there's another bad guy you're going for. And unlike Tenpenny, who is a constant negative presence in your life in GTA:SA, the bad guys in GTAIV were hidden guys who you didn't know who you were going for... they were Russian mobsters who didn't have a significant impact on your life. The game set it up that Niko has this dark past, that he's in America to take care of business, that there's some mystery there ... but there isn't any, or there isn't any worth remembering.
Rockstar made a wonderfully designed world but... sort of ruined it by not doing anything with it. There was nothing to do anywhere. Entire areas of the map had nothing of interest. No hidden guns, no hidden bombs, no hidden bottles, no collectibles, no easter eggs (or few). Entire regions of the map were barely visited for the main game. The map design was poor too, with annoying choke points and poorly planned routes that you';d have to take *a lot* and they'd terminate on slow moving city streets. The toll system was annoying because it meant driving conveniently through the boroughs required you to get police heat, or "slow down and pay a $1 toll," which the money didn't matter, but it was annoying. Highways terminated into city streets at choke points where if you were going at high speed, combined with the weightier, floatier physics, your car would often get damaged.
World building aspects were removed from the game... You couldn't own property anymore, you couldn't own cars anymore. You could steal and drive cars, but if you stole some fancy sports car, it'd usually get replaced with a floaty white SUV or the taxi or some other crappy car. These were aspects of GTA that they had from GTAIII that they just ... dropped. I guess they wanted to tell a strict story, "Would an immigrant be driving a brand new Porsche?" No, probably not, but an immigrant also wouldn't be heated with 10 guns and involved in this convoluted Russian mob story either, but... here we area. Other aspects of GTA games that were fun for some people, like collectibles and easter eggs, were dropped. Instead of secret drug packages which gave you boosts, they replaced those with ... pigeons... Except killing pigeons attracted police heat in the game, so you couldn't decide to have a slow play session grabbing collectibles because any time you fired your gun, anywhere, police showed up. Likewise, there were police on every block in the game, limiting you from the freedom of other GTA games.
GTA games have always been staged mayhem, but GTAIV took a major step back in other "sandbox" aspects of the game. I still remember beating GTA:VC and using a helicopter to do it where I'd fly back and forth to get health during the last siege of the mansion. Or in GTASA, parking cars in key locations so that my enemies would drive into them, making it easier for me to catch them. GTAIV removed all of that by removing all of your own choices from the world. If you stole a sports car to take on a mission hoping it would help you escape the cops faster on the way out ... the game would remove the sports car and replace it with the generic sedan. This was a key aspect of the GTA games prior, and GTAIV just kinda ruined it. Missions in previous GTA's that gave you some freedom in how to complete them, even if it was an illusion of freedom, that illusion was gone in GTAIV. I realized early on in a street chase down an alley that the guy I was peppering with bullets who wasn't dying ... it's because I wasn't allowed to shoot him. I had to chase him up to a balcony to have a cut scene with him. That sucked. There were a handful of missions that gave you some choice (one where you storm an office and you have some options on how to do it), but they were sandboxy choices, they were basically like "choose your own adventure" binary choices. The end of the game, especially, was hamfisted where you had to choose to kill someone close to you ... It was forced, lame, poorly done, easy to see through. Why should I care?
I don't think GTAIV "was shit," but I think it's the worst GTA since GTAIII. Sure, there were some brilliant aspects like the great physics and damage systems, much better than GTAV IMO. But those are few and far between and don't make up for the steps back.
A lot of criticism of GTAIV came shortly after with people saying "I want *fun* back!" and that often took the interpretation of meaning jet packs or harrier jets. Now, sure, jetpacks and harrier jets were a ton of fun in GTASA, but I don't think those two things skewed the debate because they were the easiest ommissions to point to from GTA:SA to GTAIV. It's not just that harriers were gone... Planes were gone, something that had been in GTA since GTAIII even if the Dodo was almost unflyable. Along with the street layout that had almost no highways and no areas of the map where you could "open it up" to drive fast; that coupled with the world design being conventionally urban, and so there being no natural geography to explore (e.g., Mt. Chiliad in GTASA, or any of the suburban areas, or the vastly different island topography from LA to SF to Las Vegas), it was a world that lacked the diverse experiences of both of the GTA's prior to GTAIV. Along with the strict mission structure, the removed sandbox aspects, and the overall depressing narrative, that got translated into "I want a fun GTA again." GTAV kind of delivered on that, but not entirely. They rectified a lot of these problems, but never quite got the sandboxy-ness of GTA:SA right, and now they've gone off in this weird direction with GTA Online being crazier than even the craziest aspects of Saints Row. So I don't know what GTAVI will resemble.
I've been most critical of GTAIV throughout the years, and continue to be with aspects of GTAV, although I do think that it was better than IV. I have major problems with GTAV as well, though not as many as IV, and neither are as good as GTA:SA. My most persistent complaint with GTAV is that Rockstar hates the people who play their games and are obsessed with taking the piss out of them, and it's bizarre. The entire game seems setup to troll the people who buy it, and I just don't get that from a directorial perspective... like, I don't understand the joy in that. For what it's worth, they don't take that approach with Red Dead Redemption or Red Dead Redemption 2, but it was such an annoying, overwhelming aspect of GTAV, and I just don't get it.
BioShock Infinite I think is just a mediocre game. I had high hopes going into it, but it was mostly hype. What I played was a fairly straight forward action game that had a lot of style but lacked even the basic player choice mechanics from Bioshock 1, and had a story that is honestly non-sensical.
I was *so hyped* for GTAIV, as GTA:SA was probably my favorite game of all time. I was ready for a return to NYC, ready for a grittier story, ready for this fresh immigrant's tale in New York. When I first got GTAIV, I loved it immediately, the weightier physics were fine by me, the gunplay was fine -- improved from SA though behind other games, but fine, and I was super excited to play it. My initial impressions were high, I thought the story was interesting at first.
But then the more I played it, the more I soured on the game. The world was largely empty, with nothing to do, the story was uninteresting. The main antagonist, far from being the greatest antagonist of any game up to that point (Officer Tenpenny, with Samuel L Jackson's stellar performance in San Andreas), didn't exist in GTAIV. There was one bad guy you were going for for half the story, then you get him, and then... there's another bad guy you're going for. And unlike Tenpenny, who is a constant negative presence in your life in GTA:SA, the bad guys in GTAIV were hidden guys who you didn't know who you were going for... they were Russian mobsters who didn't have a significant impact on your life. The game set it up that Niko has this dark past, that he's in America to take care of business, that there's some mystery there ... but there isn't any, or there isn't any worth remembering.
Rockstar made a wonderfully designed world but... sort of ruined it by not doing anything with it. There was nothing to do anywhere. Entire areas of the map had nothing of interest. No hidden guns, no hidden bombs, no hidden bottles, no collectibles, no easter eggs (or few). Entire regions of the map were barely visited for the main game. The map design was poor too, with annoying choke points and poorly planned routes that you';d have to take *a lot* and they'd terminate on slow moving city streets. The toll system was annoying because it meant driving conveniently through the boroughs required you to get police heat, or "slow down and pay a $1 toll," which the money didn't matter, but it was annoying. Highways terminated into city streets at choke points where if you were going at high speed, combined with the weightier, floatier physics, your car would often get damaged.
World building aspects were removed from the game... You couldn't own property anymore, you couldn't own cars anymore. You could steal and drive cars, but if you stole some fancy sports car, it'd usually get replaced with a floaty white SUV or the taxi or some other crappy car. These were aspects of GTA that they had from GTAIII that they just ... dropped. I guess they wanted to tell a strict story, "Would an immigrant be driving a brand new Porsche?" No, probably not, but an immigrant also wouldn't be heated with 10 guns and involved in this convoluted Russian mob story either, but... here we area. Other aspects of GTA games that were fun for some people, like collectibles and easter eggs, were dropped. Instead of secret drug packages which gave you boosts, they replaced those with ... pigeons... Except killing pigeons attracted police heat in the game, so you couldn't decide to have a slow play session grabbing collectibles because any time you fired your gun, anywhere, police showed up. Likewise, there were police on every block in the game, limiting you from the freedom of other GTA games.
GTA games have always been staged mayhem, but GTAIV took a major step back in other "sandbox" aspects of the game. I still remember beating GTA:VC and using a helicopter to do it where I'd fly back and forth to get health during the last siege of the mansion. Or in GTASA, parking cars in key locations so that my enemies would drive into them, making it easier for me to catch them. GTAIV removed all of that by removing all of your own choices from the world. If you stole a sports car to take on a mission hoping it would help you escape the cops faster on the way out ... the game would remove the sports car and replace it with the generic sedan. This was a key aspect of the GTA games prior, and GTAIV just kinda ruined it. Missions in previous GTA's that gave you some freedom in how to complete them, even if it was an illusion of freedom, that illusion was gone in GTAIV. I realized early on in a street chase down an alley that the guy I was peppering with bullets who wasn't dying ... it's because I wasn't allowed to shoot him. I had to chase him up to a balcony to have a cut scene with him. That sucked. There were a handful of missions that gave you some choice (one where you storm an office and you have some options on how to do it), but they were sandboxy choices, they were basically like "choose your own adventure" binary choices. The end of the game, especially, was hamfisted where you had to choose to kill someone close to you ... It was forced, lame, poorly done, easy to see through. Why should I care?
I don't think GTAIV "was shit," but I think it's the worst GTA since GTAIII. Sure, there were some brilliant aspects like the great physics and damage systems, much better than GTAV IMO. But those are few and far between and don't make up for the steps back.
A lot of criticism of GTAIV came shortly after with people saying "I want *fun* back!" and that often took the interpretation of meaning jet packs or harrier jets. Now, sure, jetpacks and harrier jets were a ton of fun in GTASA, but I don't think those two things skewed the debate because they were the easiest ommissions to point to from GTA:SA to GTAIV. It's not just that harriers were gone... Planes were gone, something that had been in GTA since GTAIII even if the Dodo was almost unflyable. Along with the street layout that had almost no highways and no areas of the map where you could "open it up" to drive fast; that coupled with the world design being conventionally urban, and so there being no natural geography to explore (e.g., Mt. Chiliad in GTASA, or any of the suburban areas, or the vastly different island topography from LA to SF to Las Vegas), it was a world that lacked the diverse experiences of both of the GTA's prior to GTAIV. Along with the strict mission structure, the removed sandbox aspects, and the overall depressing narrative, that got translated into "I want a fun GTA again." GTAV kind of delivered on that, but not entirely. They rectified a lot of these problems, but never quite got the sandboxy-ness of GTA:SA right, and now they've gone off in this weird direction with GTA Online being crazier than even the craziest aspects of Saints Row. So I don't know what GTAVI will resemble.
I've been most critical of GTAIV throughout the years, and continue to be with aspects of GTAV, although I do think that it was better than IV. I have major problems with GTAV as well, though not as many as IV, and neither are as good as GTA:SA. My most persistent complaint with GTAV is that Rockstar hates the people who play their games and are obsessed with taking the piss out of them, and it's bizarre. The entire game seems setup to troll the people who buy it, and I just don't get that from a directorial perspective... like, I don't understand the joy in that. For what it's worth, they don't take that approach with Red Dead Redemption or Red Dead Redemption 2, but it was such an annoying, overwhelming aspect of GTAV, and I just don't get it.
BioShock Infinite I think is just a mediocre game. I had high hopes going into it, but it was mostly hype. What I played was a fairly straight forward action game that had a lot of style but lacked even the basic player choice mechanics from Bioshock 1, and had a story that is honestly non-sensical.
Last edited:
I really dislike Skyrim and have from my first playthrough and was disheartened to see how much everyone loved it. But that's mostly cause Morrowind was an all time favorite and I knew a game like that would never be made by Bethesda again.