Grand Theft Auto 5 Made Me Sad.

[Phrozenflame500]

snip

If you'd read the rest of my post you'd have found out I generally agree with him about the story.

But I do agree I misworded that part. I was going for "well, there aren't many non-violent games, and the ones that are tend to suck" rather then "haha go back you your barbie casual".

 

[M920CAIN]

Dude wrting this article, let me give you some examples:
1. In Skyrim you can sacrifice a best friend (follower) for a Daedra named Boethiah in order to get some piece of armor

You CAN.
This is a CHOICE.
You have an OPTION to do this.

2. In Skyrim you can sacrifice a priest in order to become a canibal for another Daedra

You CAN.
This is a CHOICE.
You have an OPTION to do this.

3. In all GTA games players go on killing sprees against police, civilians, anything that moves.

You CAN.
This is a CHOICE.
You have an OPTION to do this.

4. Niko, a guy who wants to escape crime, kills so many people in GTA IV in missions in order to advance the plot and he's doing it for MONEY, ONLY MONEY, sure he needs it to get a better life and pay his cousin's gambling problems, but it's still for dirty money.

False. Many times he has a gun to his head or a gun to the head of one of his loved ones, forcing him to do the things he does.

Killing the guy via phone in that Michael Mission (I don't have xbox, I saw the mission on youtube) is nothing.

A)You are forced to do it.
B)It lacks context. There is no justification given for such an action.

These are the main differences.

It's like the game telling you "Shoot the puppy in the face, then put his brains in the kitten's food dish.", where there is no explanation given for this action, and no way to avoid it.

Well, let me put it like this:
If Niko has a gun to his head he says "yes" but after the gun is pointed away and Niko goes to do what he said yes to, can't Niko just not do it? and go to the police instead or another option? Niko is motivated mostly by money to help his family, the only times he has a gun to his head is: when meeting Faustin although it's a saw to his head, not gun, and the second one is when Packie's friends tells him about the bank job and he has the option to either do the bank job or get killed, but from a realistic point, Niko could say yes and then just go to the police or tip the police off indirectly since he can't go to them without risk of being deported.

As for Michael, I repeat, Michael didn't do anything out of the ordinary in the mission from the article. He just did a favor for a hacker who offered his help for service rendered. He didn't know the hacker was attempting murder, he thought it was something nerdy, a techy revenge of sorts. The guy who wrote the article is more disgusted by the portrayal of killing on fictional national television, but hey worst things have happened in the real world, real gory things. From what I've seen so far, GTA V is less violent than a typical gangster/mafia movie.

 

[InsanityRequiem]

The point of the GTA series, especially GTA 5 at the moment, seems to need to be explained. It's realistic satire of the portrayal of criminals and the US American Dream via media and society. A lot of the criminals, as said by the US media, have no motivation to do what they do other than because they are selfishly evil. And GTA 5 catches that media portrayal perfectly, with your characters being downright atrocious. The US American Dream? We have three aspects of that, someone trying to get better, someone currently experiencing it, and someone that attempted and crashed trying to attain that Dream, and that's the same way the US media portrays that as well. You need to be cruel, cutthroat, and horrible to your fellow humans to achieve and maintain that great American Dream, and if you crash because of it, well fuck you you're now trash.

Even then, you have to see how the characters handle the world. So far, Franklin hates his life and wants to better it, the people he's around with are two timing gangsters that keep trying to drag him into their life, causing all sorts of problems when they cause inter-gang rivalries to flare, especially when he has to deal with his only relative (aunt that shows little to no care about him) that would rather see him disappear. Michael hates his life and family, but he's trying hard to at least get in touch with them, his son and daughter at least. He knows he's got issues, and at one point, he apologizes to his son for his behavior. Unable to say much about Trevor, not having gotten to his area yet.

 

[Drummodino]

Interesting analysis Greg. It's refreshing to see a game debated in such a specific way without having to review all the features of the game for the sake of it being a review. I'm still interested in this game but I get the feeling I'll feel similarly to you about the characters and setting. Maybe in a year or so I'll pick it up if it's cheap.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

Great article, Greg. What I'm getting from you is the sense that Rockstar have moved on from making games that parody society in the traditional sense of the word 'parody', i.e. by making you laugh at absurd characterisations because you can see the links to reality; and are now making games under the postmodern understanding of 'parody', where parody and irony in general need not require any attempt to humour the audience, only to reference something.

This, btw, is a problem not just for GTA V but with a number of different forms of media, particularly literature. As a PhD student in English Literature I find postmodernist literature and criticism the laziest, sloppiest form of theory in existence. 'Cleverness' is continually misconstrued as the ability to cram a thousand references into a text, and your own credibility as a critic hinges on whether or not you get them all. There's no attempt to invoke real humour, only to sneer at everything.

The GTA3 era games were true to the original concept of parody. This was evident not only in background details like the radio stations and pop culture references, but in the overall story and the characters you played. Tommy Vercetti and CJ played straight man to hundreds of caricatures they encountered throughout the story, making you feel like an agent in an absurd comedy. This sense of humour is what made the gratuitous violence tolerable, in the same way that it works in a Tarantino film. Against the backdrop of that humour, you occasionally can look at something and shake your head at how close it comes to the reality of society.

For me, GTA IV wasn't as good because it went in the other way. It tried so hard to make social commentary that it was seemingly afraid that using humour would invalidate its irony cred. Everything was too realistic to be taken as a caricature, and every violent act just made me less interested in the game as a whole. It's a shame that GTA V has gone down the same path.

 

[Thyunda]

I feel like that is the whole point of GTA V.

That an evil person isn't humorous or enjoyable.

It's just depressing.

Trevor is the guy all the kids played as when they played the previous games. Not so funny when it's written in, is it?

 

[Uriain]

I've never truly bought into the idea that protagonists have to be someone the player/viewer/reader can relate to, even in minute ways. If that were the case, there are a ton of characters out there that are good guys that I wouldn't engage in. Besides, I don't exactly agree with the idea that these guys are not relateable in some way simply because they happen to be scumbags. Two of these guys have the very relate able condition of being stuck in a state they are unsatisfied with. Just about everyone I know has had that moment where they were unhappy with where they were. The fact these guys go on to do heinous progressively more stuff is consequential to who they are.

I play games like Kane & Lynch and God of War, despite the protagonists being irredeemable horrors. Protagonists being disgusting men doesn't not immediately equate to bad writing. Sometimes people are motivated for the most selfish and un-altruistic reasons, and sometimes those people come out on top.

I will start off here saying, I have only watched video's of GTAV, I don't own it yet and have not played it.

I think the point here isn't that they are "disgusting/irredeemable horrors" is not fully capturing the issue. Villains can be great people to play as. The "murderer" can be as an enjoyable experience as the savior. The issue is there is no context behind what they are doing, and their actions/reactions are so far removed from a "common ground" that it (to me) would make it hard to get behind using that character.

Think about this. In Spec Ops, your a terrible person. A soldier who murders a TON of people, uses phosphorous on civilians and generally is just a villain. Yet, as the game progress's you have context and reason to BE that bad guy, because you thought you were the good guy. I have not seen any sort of motivation/context implied in ANY of the things seen about GTAV.

To me, Greg Tito's review/follow up make perfect sense. He didn't say the game was bad. He didn't give it a "1 of 5" style crap score. He put his review up based on his opinions of the play through and how he felt the story/characters were represented. 7 out of 10 is a good score, and across all the other reviews you are seeing people enjoy the same things he enjoyed and question the same things he has questioned so good review/follow up sir.

 

[Voltano]

I was really surprised by the review. I don't really care for the GTA series as a player, but I found it fascinating from an intellectual point of view on how Mr. Tito reached his conclusion.

I guess what this article is saying that while a problem is the characters are morally bad -- its also the game making the player do terrible things with no moral consideration.

Reading this article reminded me of the entire thesis of "Spec Ops: The Line". The player is meant to realize that they are doing terrible things in the game that are just bad -- no ifs or buts, but just bad. And yet, the game is even aware of this as well. It recognizes that you as the player are doing these bad things, and so it will find any chance to scold you about this. I remember there is a simple quote in a loading screen late in the game that perfectly summarizes this thesis: "If you were a better person, you wouldn't be here." Anyone who has played this game knows they have done terrible things, and recognize the protagonist Walker isn't the hero he wishes he is.

The sequences Mr. Tito mentioned here sounds like are meant to have that same realization that the player caused these events, but it wants to pass it off as a joke rather than as a lesson on player action. I guess in some ways that is the safest way to handle this in a GTA games? In most cases people will just run over several people walking down a sidewalk so they can start a chase with the police, and from what I recall the game only punishes you with death by taking some of your money at a hospital. GTA is meant to just be a pointless fun game where you just go nuts in a sandbox world -- which is perfectly fine as "Saints Row" series show. But is it the most morally just way? Could all players feel happy with the actions they do in these games, even when there is no repercussions for playing the game out?

Very fascinating read Mr. Tito. Thank you for this article.

 

[Segafriday]

you know there are some closet sociopaths who just get pure guilty pleasure out of being a total asshole in a video game, some people do enjoy head explosions for thier pure spectacle or silliness, i think this game isnt taking itself too seriously and maybe this guy just isnt able to apeciate that. its childish, its immature and its infantile and its what we need sometimes. i honestly dont think its worth it to complain about rediculous game like grand theft auto, we have so many worse things to worry about

 

[lacktheknack]

and... uh... Cookie Clicker?

I'm addicted, halp

OT: Thanks for the clarification, Greg. Now, too bad none of the New Account Ragers will read this.

 

[GodzillaGuy92]

I've never truly bought into the idea that protagonists have to be someone the player/viewer/reader can relate to, even in minute ways. If that were the case, there are a ton of characters out there that are good guys that I wouldn't engage in. Besides, I don't exactly agree with the idea that these guys are not relateable in some way simply because they happen to be scumbags. Two of these guys have the very relate able condition of being stuck in a state they are unsatisfied with. Just about everyone I know has had that moment where they were unhappy with where they were. The fact these guys go on to do heinous progressively more stuff is consequential to who they are.

I play games like Kane & Lynch and God of War, despite the protagonists being irredeemable horrors. Protagonists being disgusting men doesn't not immediately equate to bad writing. Sometimes people are motivated for the most selfish and un-altruistic reasons, and sometimes those people come out on top.

The difference is that a well-written character is one in which the story's view of them matches up with the audience's view of them; in the case of evil characters, this necessitates that they either be antagonists or that the story makes the point of letting the audience know that they're not supposed to root for them (hence the several people in this thread who have brought up Spec Ops: The Line). I've not yet played GTA V, so I can't know for sure, but everything Greg has said indicates that the game's story is taking a stance of "Ah, don't worry your pretty little head, it's all in good fun." Well, no - it being all in good fun demands that the story's perception of itself falls in line with my own, not the story simply telling me it's fine without the context or intent to back up that assertion.

 

[not_you]

It's everything a GTA game is meant to be...

The main problem the writer had with it was that the characters were genuinely horrible people for no apparent reason other than "to get paid"

No underlying reasons for them to be complete tossers other than because they wanted to... So, yeah... I kinda agree...

Sure, the game is more fun flying through the city at 120Mph with no care in the world, but people will eventually tire of that and go back to the story of three bad guys doing bad things because they want to...
I'm sure when I get my copy I'll have no love for the story too... but I wouldn't care because I'm not buying GTA for the story...

 

[SilverUchiha]

I feel like that is the whole point of GTA V.

That an evil person isn't humorous or enjoyable.

It's just depressing.

I could see that actually being the point of the story for this game. Much like how Spec Ops: The Line chose to make the scenario for their story oppressive and bleak and generally unfun. The issue I see though is that in Spec Ops, you had some agency in choosing how you damned yourself or your team or the people around you. You had the choice on how bad things were going to get. But it sounds like GTAV, there's only one way it's going to go and you can't get out of their pre-planned events. Not that said method is bad or inferior in anyway. But I think the option of giving players choices, even if its the illusion of choice like Spec Ops had, can help make them feel better until the realize it's all for nothing.

The other issue I'm seeing is a lack of initial investment to the characters. I find evil characters to be very interesting when they give a good initial first impression and grip you with an interesting motive or twisted way of viewing the world. Even real evil people are interesting case studies in just trying to figure them out. But it seems like maybe the characters of GTAV failed to live up to that level. Wouldn't know. Haven't played the game and can't since I can't get it on PC. Just speculating.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

I highly doubt the lukewarm reception Greg had to GTAV is going to stop it from selling millions (upon millions) but to hear how a lot of the violence is just 'shoved in' for shock value is disappointing. This is the game series that every news fearmonger points to and screams; "Satan!" and it's sad to hear that Rockstar proudly wears the mask.

The story sounds weak as well put a big nail in the coffin, if I don't care about the characters then why the fuck would I play as them?

Fuck. GTAV is a sad game. Shows what insane dicks fans can be if and when nobody steps into line, shows how western reviewers will praise a game with misogynistic undertones, yet chastise eastern games for their 'abuse' of female characters, and that technical "triumphs" will always trump narrative ones.

 

[In Search of Username]

I feel like I get where you're coming from, and I've felt the same way about this kind of nihilistic black comedy in the past (Has anyone seen the short film Six Shooter? This article is pretty much a perfect description of how I felt about that.) but I don't feel that way about GTA V, personally. Maybe as you said it's just a difference of perspective as you get older, but personally I'm having a great laugh with it, and I don't think a story/comedic style that exceeds your tolerance for general darkness/evil/meaningless violence should necessarily be described as poor writing. If you can't get into it that's fine, but it's exactly what they were going for, and it's executed very well, if you're into that kind of thing.

 

[major_chaos]

And there went any desire I had to play GTA V. I love a well written villain (i.e Vaas in Farcry 3) but the protagonists of GTA V don't even sound that well written, not to mention that one of the best things about a truly loathsome villain is their inevitable destruction, and I doubt anything is going to pierce the plot armor of these scum, considering they are the player characters. And while I don't demand that my videogame characters be flawless, I would prefer they not be someone whose death I actively desire.

 

[Simca]

The torture scene is truly disgusting and serves -zero- purpose within the game.

I was playing through the game and enjoying it just fine, but that scene. My god, that scene is going to create 50 more of these type of articles by the end of the week.

It's fucking disturbing.

 

[norashepard]

I have to agree a billion percent with this article. I've played about 10 hours of GTAV, and it just doesn't sit well with me. I recognize that I'm not most people though, and some people are given to like this sort of thing.

That said, there are things that I'm pretty sure NOBODY would like, morally sure, but even just in the name of the game's continuity and already established canon, the biggest example of which is behind a spoiler!

Spoiler

So somehow, the entire gang from The Lost and Damned DLC for GTAIV shows up in Los Santos, and have started gang banging again. This goes completely against the entire message of Johnny Klebitz's story all on its own, which pretty clearly showed that all of those people were getting out and doing something better with their lives. But then Johnny shows up addicted to meth in Los Santos? After the spending the entirety of TLAD calling other people out on their addictive habits? And then Trevor, who supposedly respects women, has been fucking Ashley Butler while she is in a relationship with johnny (which again goes completely opposite of TLAD where he is clear in his refusal of her), gets mad at Johnny, one of the most likeable people in the entire series IMO, and STOMPS HIS HEAD INTO THE GROUND? And then kills EVERYONE ELSE in the Lost MC?

Just what the fuck. It's rude. It's offensive. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, it flies in the face of the already established canon and characters in such a disgusting way. I turned the game off after that scene. It was just too much to take. As a writer, and as a fan.

 

[Something Amyss]

Wow, I can't believe someone would be a fan of Breaking Bad and pan the characters in this. I would personally rather deal with these guys than the meritless scumbags in Breaking Bad.

I get where Greg's coming from on much of this, though. I don't care as much about choice as others seem to. It's a narrative. I'm cool with that.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

The difference is that a well-written character is one in which the story's view of them matches up with the audience's view of them; in the case of evil characters, this necessitates that they either be antagonists or that the story makes the point of letting the audience know that they're not supposed to root for them (hence the several people in this thread who have brought up Spec Ops: The Line). I've not yet played GTA V, so I can't know for sure, but everything Greg has said indicates that the game's story is taking a stance of "Ah, don't worry your pretty little head, it's all in good fun." Well, no - it being all in good fun demands that the story's perception of itself falls in line with my own, not the story simply telling me it's fine without the context or intent to back up that assertion.

I'm quite curious about people who have this frame of mind when it pertains to "evil" characters. What about characters like Agent 47 [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF-mzI2Wc84]? The guy is a genetically engineered superhuman, who seems almost devoid of emotion, and is a highly trained assassin who(until the most recent game) primary just kills people because it was what he was payed to do [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0w86x1YaapU]. That's it. Would he also not be considered evil? I mean can Trevor really be considered as evil or immoral of a person as Agent 47? At least Trevor is a human being who shows emotion, where as Agent 47 can hardly be seen having emotions at all.