The evilness is offset by the copious satire. And the fun.

The sex is optional, and the drugs are hardly an element of the gameplay, unless you're talking about the hilarious drunkenness model, and the violence is nonexisent. Wait, scratch that last one.

Even if you don't play for the evilness, the game is easily worth $60 as a "recreate your favorite movie car chase" game. A lot of people use the missions solely as a means to unlock more of the map to have a bigger playground in which to run amok.

I don’t know if people can say something to convince you that you should enjoy it. It’s like not enjoying any game that’s widely praised. Maybe it’s just not a game for you. Especially since your reasons for not liking it are the exact reasons people find it entertaining.

That said, I've actually never been that into the GTA series. I think part of it is as you mentioned, I don't like being a complete despicable jackass in a game. I can’t empathize with a character I’m controlling, if he’s a horrible human being.

Plus, I usually don’t care for open-world games. With the past games, I felt like I saw everything the game had to offer me after about an hour of driving around aimlessly. However, I’ve read enough about this current iteration to give it another chance.

I'm pretty set on not buying GTA IV simply because there are now other open-world games that don't require me acting like a criminal.

That said, I get why people are excited. I need no explanation there.

I am going to call bullsh*t on all these perfect review scores though. Considering past games and the inherent issues of the GTA series since III, I have a hard time believing they've made a perfect game. Every perfect review score is another mark against the credibility of game reviewers as a whole and further shows how there still is no true game criticism.

For me? It's the driving. I rarely went on violent rampages in GTA3, Vice City or San Andreas, but I drove my ass off in those games. I especially enjoyed the car hunts in Vice City. It's not about the violence, or the drugs, or anything like that for me. Of course, I don't mind those things in the game, since it's a game, and relatively harmless to me. I'm not suddenly going to go on an unhinged rampage or seek out narcotics just because the game focuses on some of those themes. Plus, the fact that the world is open and I can go where I please in the game is pretty fun as well. I don't know, I first saw and played GTA3 at a friend's high-school graduation party. When I saw it, my first thoughts were, "That looks really fun." I was hooked after that.

As far as drugs go. If my memory serves me correctly ALL of the previous GTA protagonist didn't ever actually use any of the drugs they delt. In San Andreas CJ was offered it, and he said something like, "nah man that sh*t messes with yo' mind." Aside from the weed burning mission where he couldn't help it though. I don't recall Tommy Vercettii ever doing any drugs either. And yeah the sex is always optional. As for the violence... Yeah... I personally find taking day to day real life frustrations out on virtual worlds relaxing. I can have a really crappy day and be angry towards everyone i see, then I'll sit down and calm down by playing games like this.

Uhh, thanks for the insights. I have been just too focused on the "negative" aspects of the game and not see the other parts of the game that could be interesting.

That said, I should explain my original post better:

I am not trying to force myself to conform or anything. But I was just really perplexed by all the perfect scores in the reviews.... I mean I just can't see how so many different people would consider the game to be perfect w/o a mention of the somewhat "interesting" premise of the game.

I just don't see the HUGE disparity of scores between GTA games and a game like Postal. Than again, maybe the next Postal game will get perfect or near perfect score too.

That sounds more like a criticism of the review system, especially the numerical review system we see now. Many of them are, in part, designed to be eye-catching at a glance, and what's more eye-catching than a 10?

QFT.

I share similar reservations.

I'm excited for GTA IV for the potential multiplayer mayhem.

I have zero knowledge about this game except that it has multiplayer and that it's based on the previous GTA games. GTA is simply a mindless arcade game with slightly disturbing anti-social overtones. I relish the idea of being able to express my deep seated sociopathy on pixels with some of my closest virtual friends.

I don't care about the stories and never have. The missions are usually just barriers to unlock more of the city and more weapons. The character is simply my darker side expressed in a way I haven't enjoyed since Quarantine. I skip the cutscenes (Sam Jackson? He *is* in everything.) and usually turn on the radio, full-blast.

If one falls into the camp of, "There's no such thing as a perfect game.", then the numerical score of 10 should be erased from scoring systems altogether because it's a technical impossibility.

I'm okay with certain titles getting the coveted score because I understand it to mean that it represents the absolute best incarnation of a game-type or genre to date. Like Podunk said, two thumbs up doesn't make a movie perfect just like a 5-star dining experience doesn't mean it is unblemished and perfectly heavenly.

Besides, most GTA IV reviews I've read have clearly stated the perfect score earned does not mean that the game is "perfect" per say, but that it is unquestionably the best representation of the genre to date.

I think you're totally missing my point. It's the basis of that score.

There's a lot of binary thinking going on here.

I never said it had to be perfect, I'm saying the ONLY games that get those scores are big name releases.

You guys are still stuck on the semantics, I'm arguing something else.

Will Wright once talked about how he observed people played The Sims. He noticed that a person's first play through was usually "evil" or "bad" but because the person is particularly dark or obsessed with these things. Wright noted the people had to learn the rules of the game, as a game is clearly not the real world even if it pretends to be. Once people learned the boundaries of the game, they went back and played a "good" character.

So I guess "It's just a game" comes to mind. That's not just cheap justification for 13-year-olds, it's profound wisdom echoed by the world's oldest religions and philosophies. You aren't damaging your karma any worse than The Sopranos or Godfather movies would. If you enjoy those tv shows/films, then you'd like GTA. If you don't, stay away from the GTA games. However, if you like gangster films but can't find yourself enjoying these games, then I suspect somewhere you haven't come to terms with your hobby.

I've never played any of the GTA games. But this one looks awesome. I'm really excited because of their new physics engine:http://www.naturalmotion.com/euphoria.htm. Looks amazing. I was watching the X-Play Preview of the game and he knocked a guy over and stood on him. For some reason (although it sounds stupid), that impressed me.

You can download a demo version of natural motions physics engine here: http://www.naturalmotion.com/ele.htm

Edit: I should mention to get the physics engine you need to register. It's free, but I didn't realize until after I posted. Also if you click open scene, you can find some pre-created demos of the technology.

I'm really torn. I truly enjoyed GTA3, but I have children now. Even though I'd never, ever let them play or see me play GTAIV, just having it in the house might make me feel like a hypocrite.

What is drawing me to it is the open-ended multiplayer as well as the sandbox aspect of the game. I just always loved driving around the city.