-
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.
Would you have given GTA V a 9,5/10 or a 10/10 in 2013?
- Thread starter Adrifi
- Start date
10/10. The fact that game was running on PS3 / Xbox 360 hardware is a marvel in itself. You can try to cut down the granular bits of the story and pick apart the characters, but it's an amazingly fun world to play around in with a ton of variety as far as activities go. It's a delightful world to run around and exist in as a carjacking criminal.
It's well made and impressive in scope, but has absolutely nothing in it that I really love. So yeah probably an 8ish?
i entered this thread thinking 9.5 and 10 would be the only options available in the poll lol
anyway, i haven't played it so i didn't vote
anyway, i haven't played it so i didn't vote
On the one hand, even a 7 is generous for a game that controls so poorly. I bought it on PS3, and then again on PS4, and have never managed to play more than 30 minutes of it (total ever, not "per sitting").
On the other, it was a generation ahead of its time in terms of scope and ambition, and it's a technical miracle that it could even exist on the absolute garbage cans those consoles were.
On the other, it was a generation ahead of its time in terms of scope and ambition, and it's a technical miracle that it could even exist on the absolute garbage cans those consoles were.
10/10
Frankly, as a last gen game, it still blows most XBO/PS4 games out of the water with the scope of its world and straight up fun factor. It was a 10/10 then and if it came out today, it wouldn't be any less than a 9.5.
Frankly, as a last gen game, it still blows most XBO/PS4 games out of the water with the scope of its world and straight up fun factor. It was a 10/10 then and if it came out today, it wouldn't be any less than a 9.5.
The controls were rough and the writing was poor in 2013. I don't think games have matured so much in seven years that GTAV's shortcomings can be attributed to its age. The same is - and was - true for GTAIV, which was archaic in many respects back in 2008.
Even back then it had shit-tier movement and gunplay. Missions constantly becoming gunfights wouldn't have been an issue to me if the combat was good but it was always a chore. And that was followed by getting chased by the cops which was always a pain too. Would probably have given it like a 6/10 then. So yes, "they killed my family".
Writing was dated and lame as fuck even at release. Very enjoyable game but not a masterpiece at all.
San Andreas is the only 10/10 GTA.
San Andreas is the only 10/10 GTA.
In 2013, I get the review score of a 9.5 or 10.
I think, in retrospect, after thinking about GTAV a lot over the years, and all of the flaws, I'd give it a 9/10 or an 8/10. There's some things that are still really, really well done. The voice acting is superb, among the best of any game, the cinematic fights and setpieces are great and much better than any GTA game in the past. The world is superbly designed and executed on, it's the 2nd best game world ever created, only behind Red Dead Redemption II which came out 5ish years later. There are some things that Rockstar does that no other game developer does as well, something you can only get in Rockstar created worlds.
But there are aspects of GTAV that deserve critique. There are no sandbox elements to this game. You are expected to complete the missions in the way that they want you to complete the missions. This is something that wasn't present in GTAIV either, it was gone once they jumped to 360/PS3, and it's a shame because it was one of the best emergent gameplay features of GTAIII, VC, and SA... It's just something that Rockstar disagrees with fans of the series on. THey want to tell you a cinematic story where you follow a series of steps to have a story told to you; players expecting a sandbox want to use the tools the game gives you -- the player -- to beat the mission in the way that they feel is most fun or rewarding. In GTAV this is especially frustrating because the game gives you lots of tools, but ultimately wants you to use the method they designed for that mission. This is a bummer.
The story is bad. The characters don't grow. They missed an opportunity with that story. In 2013 it's not as bad as in 2018 where you can compare GTAV to RDR2, which is excellent character growth, depth, and motivations. The motivations of the characters in GTAV is vapid and annoying.
The reward system in the game is completely, utterly fucked up and most of the time it seems like Rockstar is playing an extended prank on the player, like they're actively hostile to the player for playing the game. It's an utterly nihilist worldview and I kinda get that "that's the point, it's vapid LA!" but it doesn't work as a videogame. Often times it feels like Rockstar hates its players.
"Strangers and Freaks" missions all play the same way:
In my opinion, the main storyline follows this format as well to a fault. It's a terrible, empty, meaningless story that goes nowhere and does nothing. Nothing has changed from when the game begins to when the game completes. Nobody changes. Also, the reward mechanisms in the game are completely, completely fucked up. The tangible rewards that the player gets, for instance, Franklin's house in the hollywood hills, are arbitrarily rewarded after pointless missions -- "Hey, we've decided to give you a mansion Franklin, and a dog, and an annoying motorcycle that is no fun to drive!" And yet, later missions that have you like ... breaking into planes to get advanced weaponry -- the very thing that the GTA series got so right in GTA:SA and previous games -- you get nothing "oops, looks like they're all destroyed!" or "Oops! we got nuclear material, we can't keep this the military will be after us!"
There is ONE sub-story in the game that breaks this mold, and it's the only one that rewards you with anything meaningful and it rewards you so much that I think Rockstar had to patch it because it was so unbalanced -- the stock cheating minigames. No mission gives you any rewards throughout the entire game, except for 4 or 5 missions where you buy and sell stocks, and that's where you can get all of your money and become some rich that you never need to worry about money in the game again.
There's no coherent bad guys in the game that you care about. The bad guys are as vapid as the good guys.
The story and world are shallow in ways that Red Dead Redemption 2 isn't. Red Dead Redemption 2 rewards you for exploration and discovery.
I have a lot more thoughts on what GTAV got wrong, I've written about it a lot before.
Or this post about "The Illusion of Agency In Rockstar Games"
I don't think that it's hopeless for Rockstar. After GTAV seemed to be Rockstar lashing out at their players, and seemed to show a disdain for fans of their series, Red Dead Redemption II was like a love letter to fans of Red Dead Redemption. Side missions that have an impact either to the player (in game rewards, money, weapons, unique items in the world) or to the characters (showing some aspect of the characters that you wouldn't see, world building / narrative building). THe characters in the game grow and evolve. Their relationships are meaningful and make sense. The game makes a tight bond between the player and the protagonist, Arthur Morgan, which is something that Rockstar did so well with GTA:VC, SA, and RDR, but did so poorly with GTAV. The side characters have depth, value, and aren't just caricatures, compare this to any side characters in GTAV (other than Lamar). You could understand why Arthur would ride with this gang and why people in the gang would care about each other. This is something that GTAV falls completely flat on, everybody hates each other in the game, and their motivations are petty and stilted; the relationships are lazy -- [Michael] "Gotta protect your son," [Niko] "gotta save your cousin", [Trevor] "Michael's your best friend," [Franklin] "I want money."
So I don't think it's hopeless for Rockstar games, it might be hopeless for future GTA games. I just think the tone of the GTA games is so nihilistic, so hateful of the players who play it, that it's hard for me to get excited about a GTA story.
I think, in retrospect, after thinking about GTAV a lot over the years, and all of the flaws, I'd give it a 9/10 or an 8/10. There's some things that are still really, really well done. The voice acting is superb, among the best of any game, the cinematic fights and setpieces are great and much better than any GTA game in the past. The world is superbly designed and executed on, it's the 2nd best game world ever created, only behind Red Dead Redemption II which came out 5ish years later. There are some things that Rockstar does that no other game developer does as well, something you can only get in Rockstar created worlds.
But there are aspects of GTAV that deserve critique. There are no sandbox elements to this game. You are expected to complete the missions in the way that they want you to complete the missions. This is something that wasn't present in GTAIV either, it was gone once they jumped to 360/PS3, and it's a shame because it was one of the best emergent gameplay features of GTAIII, VC, and SA... It's just something that Rockstar disagrees with fans of the series on. THey want to tell you a cinematic story where you follow a series of steps to have a story told to you; players expecting a sandbox want to use the tools the game gives you -- the player -- to beat the mission in the way that they feel is most fun or rewarding. In GTAV this is especially frustrating because the game gives you lots of tools, but ultimately wants you to use the method they designed for that mission. This is a bummer.
The story is bad. The characters don't grow. They missed an opportunity with that story. In 2013 it's not as bad as in 2018 where you can compare GTAV to RDR2, which is excellent character growth, depth, and motivations. The motivations of the characters in GTAV is vapid and annoying.
The reward system in the game is completely, utterly fucked up and most of the time it seems like Rockstar is playing an extended prank on the player, like they're actively hostile to the player for playing the game. It's an utterly nihilist worldview and I kinda get that "that's the point, it's vapid LA!" but it doesn't work as a videogame. Often times it feels like Rockstar hates its players.
"Strangers and Freaks" missions all play the same way:
- The player meets a stranger/freak
- The character is hostile to the stranger and doesn't trust them
- The stranger offers them some reward if the character performs a task
- The player performs the task for the character, returns to the Stranger, who then tells them, sorry, you need to perform another task for your reward
- The character is hostile to the stranger and doesn't trust them
- The stranger assures them they can be trusted if they just perform this next task
- [ Repeat steps 2 - 6 several times ]
- Finally, after completing all tasks -- OOPS, the joke's on you player, there is no reward! Bye!
In my opinion, the main storyline follows this format as well to a fault. It's a terrible, empty, meaningless story that goes nowhere and does nothing. Nothing has changed from when the game begins to when the game completes. Nobody changes. Also, the reward mechanisms in the game are completely, completely fucked up. The tangible rewards that the player gets, for instance, Franklin's house in the hollywood hills, are arbitrarily rewarded after pointless missions -- "Hey, we've decided to give you a mansion Franklin, and a dog, and an annoying motorcycle that is no fun to drive!" And yet, later missions that have you like ... breaking into planes to get advanced weaponry -- the very thing that the GTA series got so right in GTA:SA and previous games -- you get nothing "oops, looks like they're all destroyed!" or "Oops! we got nuclear material, we can't keep this the military will be after us!"
There is ONE sub-story in the game that breaks this mold, and it's the only one that rewards you with anything meaningful and it rewards you so much that I think Rockstar had to patch it because it was so unbalanced -- the stock cheating minigames. No mission gives you any rewards throughout the entire game, except for 4 or 5 missions where you buy and sell stocks, and that's where you can get all of your money and become some rich that you never need to worry about money in the game again.
There's no coherent bad guys in the game that you care about. The bad guys are as vapid as the good guys.
The story and world are shallow in ways that Red Dead Redemption 2 isn't. Red Dead Redemption 2 rewards you for exploration and discovery.
I have a lot more thoughts on what GTAV got wrong, I've written about it a lot before.
Or this post about "The Illusion of Agency In Rockstar Games"
I don't think that it's hopeless for Rockstar. After GTAV seemed to be Rockstar lashing out at their players, and seemed to show a disdain for fans of their series, Red Dead Redemption II was like a love letter to fans of Red Dead Redemption. Side missions that have an impact either to the player (in game rewards, money, weapons, unique items in the world) or to the characters (showing some aspect of the characters that you wouldn't see, world building / narrative building). THe characters in the game grow and evolve. Their relationships are meaningful and make sense. The game makes a tight bond between the player and the protagonist, Arthur Morgan, which is something that Rockstar did so well with GTA:VC, SA, and RDR, but did so poorly with GTAV. The side characters have depth, value, and aren't just caricatures, compare this to any side characters in GTAV (other than Lamar). You could understand why Arthur would ride with this gang and why people in the gang would care about each other. This is something that GTAV falls completely flat on, everybody hates each other in the game, and their motivations are petty and stilted; the relationships are lazy -- [Michael] "Gotta protect your son," [Niko] "gotta save your cousin", [Trevor] "Michael's your best friend," [Franklin] "I want money."
So I don't think it's hopeless for Rockstar games, it might be hopeless for future GTA games. I just think the tone of the GTA games is so nihilistic, so hateful of the players who play it, that it's hard for me to get excited about a GTA story.
Last edited:
Not every story is written with the intent of having big character arcs. GTA 5 mostly plays out like a high octane action film - the characterization is minimal, which is intentional. In fact, a big thing in the story is how little both Michael and Trevor changed despite the long amount of time that passed and all the circumstances. It's also the first time the game doesn't consistently reward the player. But this isn't a bad thing. Earlier GTA games always gave you payouts when you finsihed a mission, even if it basically made no sense. GTA 5 only rewards the player when it is logical - this adds value to the actual rewards, as you can go 10 missions in a row without payment, but then you hit a big score and get 1 mil on your account. It feels good.
You mention "good guys" being the same as "bad guys". Who are the good guys, exactly? GTA 5 doesn't try to morally justify* any of its main characters. They're all shit people. That's kind of the point. Trevor is arguably the main villain of the game, despite being a player character. He is basically the catalyst for everything bad happening in the story. That's why people like Steve Haines or Devin Weston aren't ultimately that important. They serve their purpose in the story, which is to push the relationship between Michael and Trevor to a breaking point.
My only significant issue with the story stems from this - the last few missions of the game are far too rushed and a lot of very convenient things happen, and the tension between Michael and Trevor never gets properly resolved, unless you pick one of the kill endings. Those endings are argualby more fitting than Death wish, but they're also not nearly as detailed, unfortunately.
A lot of games have repetative side missions or activities, and I'm sure you may be right that GTA 5 has the same issue though I honestly can't say that I've noticed every strangers & freaks mission to be the same. In fact the few I can recall, like escorting the old couple, the border patrol, hunting, or the paparazzi stuff were all quite different...
Rockstar's restrictive main mission design has been a talking point for years, but ultimately it's how they choose to tell their story. It's highly unlikely that they "hate the player". Realistically, the main reason why so many rockstar games' missions are so memorable is because rockstar sets everything up in a way that players get the "optimal" experience. That's how RDR 2 achieved its most iconic moments as well - it's just what it is. There is a trade off, and perhaps rockstar does go too far at times with fail conditions, but if anything GTA 5 is definitely less restrictive than RDR 2. (and I prefer RDR 2 as a game overall, as well).
There is plenty to do in the sandbox - not just side missions. But I feel like you're kinda ignoring the big thing here, which is online. It's absolutely the sandbox heaven for GTA 5, with insane amount of things to do both in terms of activities or in free roam. Sure, I get that not everyone wants to play online, but it's still there. RDR 2's open world depth and exploration are amazing, but it's also something that likely only works in a less sparsely populated game like RDR 2.
*the lowest pooint of the game is Trevor attempting to morally justify the torture mission. It was completely unneeded. And it just came off as childish.
Its kind of insane how good it still looks on PC for a 2013 game. Rockstars attention to detail is second to none.
I didn't even like it back then. The scope and detail of the world is amazing, but the movement, shooting, and driving just didn't feel good to me. Plus the super restrictive mission design. It wasn't fun to play.
Nope. GTA V has a wonderfully built city and a fun narrative, but the fact that all you can really do in the city is general meaningless chaos or linear, extremely scripted missions is a buzzkill. Not to mention the controls and gunplay are generally poor.
The production values are thruogh the roof but its about an 8/10 game for me.
The production values are thruogh the roof but its about an 8/10 game for me.
I only completed the game last year after initially starting on PS3 and then again on XB1.
Just thought it was a bit rubbish and felt no reason so continue on with it during the initial uptake.
FWIW: I think it is technically great but sorely lacking in gameplay and story.
RDR2 feels like a step up in terms of story and world, but ofc has its own set of "problems".
MP is wank in both.
Just thought it was a bit rubbish and felt no reason so continue on with it during the initial uptake.
FWIW: I think it is technically great but sorely lacking in gameplay and story.
RDR2 feels like a step up in terms of story and world, but ofc has its own set of "problems".
MP is wank in both.
The GTA games are probably the most overrated in all of gaming, especially 4 and 5. They're solid 8 out of 10 games for sure, but that's about it.
Pretty much.
For me this a Red Dead 2 have stories that have the makings of a first act, then an ending.
Like, we all know what's going to happen and it wasn't particularly interesting.
Also Carolyn Petit's review gave it a 9/10 but she actually addressed the problematic elements.
Which of course means she STILL gets shit for it online.
She's a damn good critic, someone fucking hire her.
Grand Theft Auto V Review
Grand Theft Auto V is an outrageous, exhilarating, sometimes troubling crime epic that pushes open-world game design forward in amazing ways.
www.gamespot.com
It's the most impressive living city we have, so I think that alone makes it worthy of the attention it's received, even if not quite so high scores.
With that said, the gameplay could stand to be a lot better, and the depictions of women in the game should be a lot better too.
With that said, the gameplay could stand to be a lot better, and the depictions of women in the game should be a lot better too.
There are probably less than 10 games in existence that are closer to 10/10 than 9.5/10. GTAV is not even close to that, not even in the middle of launch hype.
Edit: I misunderstood the question a bit. It was a strong 9 for me. Might've even given it something like 92-94 on a 100 point scale. My opinion on it has soured a bit since then. It's more of a barely 9/10. It's still such a strong package that I wouldn't go down to an 8.
Edit: I misunderstood the question a bit. It was a strong 9 for me. Might've even given it something like 92-94 on a 100 point scale. My opinion on it has soured a bit since then. It's more of a barely 9/10. It's still such a strong package that I wouldn't go down to an 8.
Last edited:
A solid 10/10 even today it still puts other boring empty "open world" games to shame and looks and feels amazing to play. It's crazy that this game came out 7 years ago. One of the best gaming experiences I've ever had on all fronts.
Exactly. The switching between three characters feels like it shouldn't have worked at all, but it worked perfectly!
That's Era. On the same day, one of the best games ever made is a meh and Fallout 76 is "actually good".
A 7 or 8.
The open world is really impressive, but the story goes fucking nowhere for about 20 hours.
The open world is really impressive, but the story goes fucking nowhere for about 20 hours.
At the time the technical aspect probably pushed it up to a 9.5-10 for me, really is incredible they got that out of the PS360, but the hype at the time would have definitely overshadowed some of it's flaws for me too.
I tried to replay it not too long ago and just couldn't get into and I've not like GTA Online since like 2014.
I tried to replay it not too long ago and just couldn't get into and I've not like GTA Online since like 2014.
Nope. I found to to be a step back from GTA4 and to be one of the worst GTA games. RDR2 showed they still have it though.
My comment about "bad guys" is a critique that I put on a lot of games: Give me a good antagonist. The antagonist character is often one that helps move the story alone, gives a motivation for the other characters, and the best antagonists are the ones that are realistic, present throughout the story, and pose some realistic threat to the protagonists. I should have said, "Antagonist" in my post not "bad guy" or "good guy," because I get it, Rockstar is making a vapid, nihilistic world where everybody is a bad, everybody is an empty shell of a human, and that's "the point," but I think it falls flat. I also think they have the ability to make that world -- a vapid, nihilistic world -- and also have protagonists and antagonists that have good motivations to do the things that the player is asked to do with them, but they didn't in GTAV. But "looking for the bad guy" is something that I do in a lot of games, and I think that games that do the central antagonist best end up being some of the most rewarding games from a narrative point of view.
An example of a great antagonist is Office Tenpenny from GTA:SA. Infact, I think he's probably the best antagonist from any modern videogame and perhaps ever.
Tenpenny, aside from being voice amazingly by Samuel L. Jackson, is just such a well designed antagonist. He's ever-present in the game for the player and protagonist: The first scene of GTA:SA you're introduced to him and as soon as CJ is back in LA, Tenpenny is there to make your life difficult. But, meanwhile, you can't do anything to him and that fits the narrative of the game. Tenpenny, a high ranking corrupt police officer, has all of the control. If CJ / the player try to threaten him in a realistic way, it'll make CJ's life more difficult and the people who he loves will have more difficult lives.
Tenpenny returns throughout the story, he's nearly always present, he's basically always "the goal," for the player or providing you the realistic next point to move the story along. When CJ gets exiled into the countryside, basically a narrative technique to open up more of the game world (and a very good one at that; previous GTA games usually used some externality ... A hurricane that shut down the bridge, a terrorist event that made the bridge in Liberty City impassable; GTASA actually opens up the other regions in an interesting way, you're brought there against your will by the antagonist). In the country missions, CJ is incapable of doing anything harmful to Tenpenny because Tenpenny has leverage over him (he is holding his brother, a likeable character, hostage; Your brother got captured by Tenpenny because he turned two of your allies to work for him).
GTA:SA gets the idea of having bosses and mini-bosses. Tenpenny is the boss. He's the guy you want to take down at the top of the pyramid from which all other malign actors come from. But then the game also introduces other mini-bosses below Tenpenny and creates realistic scenarios for why you want your revenge and why you have to perform certain tasks before you can get there. Ryder, Office Polaski, Big Smoke, and all of the other "serious" mini-bosses get some of their influence from Tenpenny.
Tenpenny is present throughout almost the entire game. He's a constant thorn in your side. The only period where he's not really relevant is CJ's "In the dessert" (literally, CJ is in the desert, and metaphorically, CJ's period of growth & power apart from the central drama of the storyline) chapter, which is also probably the weakest chapter in GTA:SA from a narrative point of view, but it also gave Rockstar an opportunity to add "gamieness" to it -- the jetpack, stealing harrier jets, getting an airport, taking over a casino, the gimp mission, and all sorts of other lighthearted silliness that doesn't really work into the main narrative but are some of the elements of the game that fans liked the most.
So, Rockstar knows how to create antagonists. They did it better than any other videogame, in my opinion. So, it's disappointing to have GTAIV and V (and to an extent Red Dead Redemption, though RDR is closer to GTA:SA with its execution of antagonists than it is to GTAV or IV). But they really missed this with both GTAIV and V. But, where it hurts V is that they give the players motivations that are ultimately vapid: The characters get duped, while the player knows that the characters are getting duped, but the characters are just too dumb to do anything about it. And that's frustrating from a player agency point of view.
My point about Strangers and Freaks missions isn't repetition of gameplay, it's reptition of motivation. They all play out exactly the same. A stranger that you don't like makes you do something that you -- the player -- don't want to do, but the character (Trevor, Michael, Franklin) is duped or coerced into doing it, and the player knows that there's not going to be any reward. The old couple who needs memorabilia is not wealthy, you -- the player -- figure it out, but Trevor gets duped or coerced into it, and ultimately they obviously have nothing. Jokes on you! The marijuana guy has you perform these series of missions tying into marijuana in some way, and there's going to be this big climax and ...... Oops, jokes on you player, the marijuana guy slept in because he's a marijuana guy and marijuana guys are lazy. Jokes on you! The paparazi guy who is a racist homophobe and Franklin hates him but he begrudgingly agrees to do his tasks because he can make "beaucoup bucks man" and ... Jokes on you! The paparazi guy is broke! The real estate guy who has you destroy his property signs, promises you money from an insurance scam, and ... ends up ... prostituting his wife to you and then he'll give you the money for the insurance scam, but he has no money! JOkes on you! .....
Almost every side mission follows this format in the game, and a ton of the main story missions follow this format. It's not reptition of gameplay, it's repetition of the narrative. Like you said, the narrative and story gets rushed, ultimately there is nothing there. When you combine the poor reward system of the missions -- the "jokes on you, you dumb idiot!" nature of them -- and the lack of a meaningful, realistic antagonist, the motivations for the player (you with the controller) and the character (Michael, Trevor, Franklin) fall out of sync. Unlike in GTA:SA where it makes sense why the player (you) and the protagonist (CJ) can't kill Officer Tenpenny right away, in GTAV, there's really no reason why Michael, Trevor, or Franklin can't just kill any of the antagonists, once you're about 60% of the way through the story. None of the antagonists hold any power over you, they're not giving you any rewards, the game as repeated this "jokes on you" trope a dozen times by that point, and as the player you end up just going through the motions of "See mission marker on map, start mission, end mission." ANd, by this point in the game I'd imagine most players have some story fatigue ... You know you're not getting any rewards -- everything's a joke on the characters -- you don't have any strong feelings other than annoyance at the antagonists, and there's no narrative reason why you or the characters couldn't just whack these antagonists and solve your problems just like you did with a hundred other antagonists before them. I think it's a major flaw with the game, and a missed opportunity (I've written about the opportunity with GTAV before, where you realistically set up a 'mole' storyline, where one of the gang members is working against the other two, but you hide this from the player and the characters, only to reveal it at the same time ... so the characters and the player find out "the big reveal" simultaneously, and then as a player you can think back through the story about how there were clues all along; I'd like it to Adriana La Cerva's climax in the Sopranos, where you the viewer and Adriana basically get duped until the final moment and most people were like ".... oh holy shit no ..." right at the same moment she realizes it too), but thankfully, I think they did a much, much better job with RDR2.
I also hated the alternative endings -- the kill endings -- because they came out of nowhere and their contrived. Like, all of a sudden, Franklin wants to kill Michael because ... Michael held him back ... (?) and ... Michael suddenly becomes a snivelling coward fleeing from Franklin ... ? It was so weird, so out of place. I think they wanted to have this checklist, like, "You get to choose your own ending!" but the only ending that made any sense (And that was satisfying) was the 'Death Wish' ending. My first playthrough, I thought that Option A was kill Trevor, Option B was Kill Michael, and Option C was they all die ... And so I picked Option B to kill Michael from purely gameplay perspective, I preferred Trevor's location on the map more than Michaels, and might have had a couple Trevor missions left. I ended up going back and replaying it with DEath Wish and realizing that's "The real ending," but that they even gave you that "choice" and rushed those bizarre endings in there just felt weird and tacked on, like they didn't know what they were doing with the story.
Last edited:
I would've had no problem giving it a 9.5 at the time. I was really blown away by the game when it first released and even loved the controls and gunplay.
I tried going back to it for a bit after finishing RDR2 and wasn't feeling it near as much as I used to.
I tried going back to it for a bit after finishing RDR2 and wasn't feeling it near as much as I used to.
