Well it's good that someone finally ignored the hype to give a review.

That's a good review I think. Of course, it's a good game, but I havn't complete it yet, there's just something missing from the game. The focus on realism is all well and good, but what is realism when there's not much fun to be had in the game? The initial "Oh my god i've got GTA IV" wears of fairly quickly.

I like how IGN rated the game as a 10, something that hadn't been done by them for years. And two months later, Metal Gear is released getting an alleged '11' (though still a ten on the charts) and now GTA doesn't even compare. At first, I thought GTA was somewhat deserving, but going back to the game and playing it after having played Metal Gear, I really don't think Grand Theft Auto deserves as high of a rating as it's been given. Not that I'm biased or just trying to boost MGS' rep, simply saying that I thought at the time that GTA was a peak in console gaming (or something stupid like that) and now I understand that it's really not.

Still a good game, though.

Damn that's a good review.

I think it was a fabulous review, but to be quite honest, I think the reviewer, while writing an amazing article, let his own "tastes" get in the way when scoring the game. Personally? I think this game should be given two different scores. One score as a stand alone game, which pretends that there was NEVER a GTA before this. As a stand alone game, forgetting all the wild and insane FUN as well as the unrealistic gameplay I loved from past titles, the game deserves a solid 9.0/10.0. If I were to put it side by side with San Andreas, for example, which universally received scores of around 9.7 and higher, THEN I would agree with the reviewer that the game is about an 8.0/10.0. However, it is UNFAIR for me (or him) to kick the score so low because he doesn't like the realism, even though I would agree that it imparted a certain level of boring tedium to the game not present in previous titles.

Again, the article was BRILLIANT, and it was very accurately written. This quote rang VERY TRUE for me:

"It’s unfortunate that the skewed ambition of the title only goes to curb the freedom that its sandbox universe could offer. We’re left with an experience which feels bound where it once felt limitless, a setting that feels confined where it once felt enormous, which places more value in creating plausible missions than memorable ones, and decides you would rather play a realistic game than a fun one."

I have been saying this since the game releases. Now again, as a stand alone game, pretending there was NEVER a GTA before this one, it is a masterpiece. And that, in my opinion, is what the score should reflect. However, as a GTA game, I feel that Rockstar choked the life out of it, bogged it down with heavy realism, slowed down the whole feel of the game, and took away the very thing that MOST fans embraced GTA for, the unadulterated freedom and feeling of god-like power. The best way I can put it is to say that playing as Fido (AKA CLaude), Tommy V, CJ, Tony and Vic Vance made you feel like a vengeful GOD as you campaigned to take over the city and had powers and stamina far beyond mortal men.

Contrast that with Niko, who is not God-like at all, but a mere man, and in fact, an immigrant no better off at the end of the game than he was when he walkled off the boat in the beginning. In fact, you could argue he is WORSE off depending on the "ending" you choose. If you like realism and want to be a mere mortal man, vulnerable to your environment, then GTA IV is the game for you. However, if you want to be on top of the world, instilled with God-like weapons, stamina, speed, and driving skill, then GTA restricts the living shit out of you.

Iit all depends on what you are looking for from a GTA game.