Supreme Court rules Supreme Court rules

Above: Grander theft auto

My arch-enemies at Village Voice Media* have posted their review of Grand Theft Auto IV. They are fairly bold in giving it a tepid write-up. It's still positive, but it's certainly the lowest rating I've seen for the game thus far. The reviewer, Gary Hodges, gives it an 8/10, and spends the bulk of the text highlighting some of the gameplay problems.

They're good points all, and I can't say I disagree with any of them. In fact, the unflattering comparisons to Crackdown are well taken. If I had to say which was the better game, I'd go with Crackdown. It doesn't try to do as much as Grand Theft Auto, but as a result it's tighter and more playable. The makers of Crackdown opted to do a few things exceptionally well, rather than try to do everything passably.

For all the ways GTA lets you explore the open world of Liberty City, Niko and the environment never seem to mesh perfectly. He looks like he's being filmed against a green screen when it comes to scrambling up hillsides and other areas with irregular footing. By contrast, in Crackdown, characters really could go anywhere and do anything. If you noticed a little outcropping on the side of a building, your character could jump up and grab it. He could pick up any objects, provided his strength level was sufficient. The entire environment was usable. In Grand Theft Auto, much of it is ornamental.

And that's okay. Part of the reason GTA is so successful is that it puts the character in a living world in which he isn't always the focal point. Liberty City is full of citizens going about their lives. They don't know or care who Niko is. To them, he's just another stranger they'll encounter out of thousands -- you know, unless he happens to be running from the cops with guns blazing.

The Voice's criticisms of GTA are well taken, and I think any honest observer would have to admit that they are fair. In fact, it's strange to me that such a negative review still resulted in the 8/10 score, but I know from personal experience that sometimes the score you give a game and the review you write don't necessarily match up, even if you believe in them both. We in the alt-weekly biz have little space in which to work, and that sometimes means choosing one thing to focus on at the expense of balance.

Hodges does seem to give himself a 10/10 for his own critical prowess, devoting his introduction and conclusion to belittling the across-the-board perfect scores the game has gotten (this is mentioned off-handedly in my own upcoming review), and congratulating himself on standing against the tide of mainstream opinion. I'd like to be bothered by this a little more, but, damn it, he's pretty much right. The Metacritic score for the PS3 version is holding steady at 99, and the Xbox 360 version is just one point lower. That's crazy. It's crazy for all the reasons Hodges points out.

I've heard a lot of people praise the controls as being such a huge step forward for Grand Theft Auto, but they're exactly as far behind the curve as they were in past GTA games. Compared to San Andreas, sure, the shooting controls are phenomenal. Compared to Gears of War or Rainbow Six Vegas, not so much. Given how important shooting is to the game, you'd think this would have bothered somebody. No, it doesn't ruin the game -- not by a long shot -- but it's hardly compatible with "best game ever" accolades. If somebody wanted to catalog every legitimate complaint a person could have with this game, they'd soon have a novella.

So, Gary Hodges, I salute your vainglorious iconoclasm. You and your VVM cohort may have won this battle, but the war is far from over. The Phoenix will crush you!**

*Not really.

**Not really.