Grand Theft Auto 5 Made Me Sad.

[skywolfblue]

I think the intent is to leave your moral values on the shelf and simply indulge yourself. The motivation for your characters action is simply "Because they wanted to" and "because they can", and perhaps your escapism in this case is simply adopting that mindset, for the narrative as much as for the gameplay.

Morals are something that should NEVER be put on a shelf.

If your entire sense of right vs. wrong can be tossed aside because it's inconvenient, or because it "gets in the way of fun", then where is your foundation?

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

As far back as I can remember, I've always wanted to be a gangster.

I do know where you're coming from here. It's a feeling I was experiencing for the first few hours of the game. It was fairly bleak, kinda saddening. I'm actually finding the game more and more life-affirming as it's progressing, as strange as that might sound. It's cynicism sorta validates my own, and puts it in perspective in a way that's kinda hard to explain. The characters might not be the most likable, but the overall tone, the trademark Rockstar satire... It quickly moved from uncomfortable to comforting, for me.

I think the beauty of having 3 protagonists is that none of them are definitively you. It becomes more like a fractured narrative film than RPG game. You're guiding the events but you're also a step removed, never quite identifying fully with any one avatar. It's jarring at first, but I reckon it probably expands the realms of potential storytelling fairly dramatically when you can have not-all-together likable leading players.

Parts have been fairly affecting. Personally, "no Russian" was a harder mental hit than anything GTA has thrown at me (and I've already played through the two sequences you focused on). No-Russian's first-person perspective, whilst handing you a massive gun... and removing the ability to simply shoot the people doing the bad thing, was harder to take. There was an in-shoes, visceral empathy for the tragedy of the scene and the impotence of the protagonist that just hit me harder than the narrative in GTA. GTA, to me, feels more like interacting with a dark comedy.

What am I saying? I fully understand, but my experience has been different. I am a little younger than you, Greg. My older brother seems to have gone off violent-media. Who knows, maybe I'll follow suit soon enough.

Wouldn't count on it though.

 

[GodzillaGuy92]

I cannot possibly imagine that GTA has nothing to "let them in on the joke"...they basically would have to cut out stuff shown in the trailers and TV Spots for this to be true.

Interesting. This is news to me. Would you mind sharing some examples?

I'd agree, but the problem for me is, both the Review and the Editorial fail to comment on that. It just scolds the game for giving the characters insufficient motivations (despite pointing out that they are driven by "malaise, greed and psychosis", wich usually is a sufficient motivation even in real life) and is sad about a darkly satirical game about crime and the shallowest of american lifestyles because these things are dark and sad.

The motivations make sense, but they still make for an unlikable character, and what the article and review argue is that the game lacks the proper context to render those motivations satisfying on some level - either by making the characters sympathetic despite these flaws or communicating to the audience that the characters are unlikable by design - thus leaving the audience by itself in its attempt to derive meaning from the events depicted in-game. Though I am in full agreement that the implication that "games should only ever be fun and never attempt to evoke a negative emotional response" is horribly misguided.

I don't know, many people fail to see the satirical elements of "Robocop" and "Starship Troopers", but i wouldn't dare to call one or both a "failed attempt" (even though there are worlds between the former and the latter).

Sorry if I didn't explain myself well: When I suggested GTA V was a failed attempt, it wasn't on the basis that not everyone would understand the game's satire (if literally everyone was required to recognize satire for it to be successful, there would be no successful satire in existence), but that the game contains nothing to clue in the audience to the fact that they're supposed to hate the main characters. Starship Troopers, for example, contains several things you can point to besides the unlikability of the characters that inform the audience of its satirical nature, such as the fifties-style propaganda ads prettying up all the horrors of war and the fact that one can only become a citizen by serving in the military. In a game that bills itself as a crime simulator, I wouldn't classify making the main characters despicable criminals as a sufficiently clear message to the audience by itself. The social satire concerning the vapidity of modern Western lifestyles is self-evident, of course, but unlike Starship Troopers, where the protagonists are aligned with the obviously-fascist government, the criminals of Grand Theft Auto V are depicted as turning to crime to escape their social circumstances, thereby painting their horrible actions as innately justified or even heroic unless the game tells the audience "You should hate these people" in other ways.

Of course, not yet having played GTA V, I can't say for certain whether this is the case; perhaps the game is indeed full of these hints, and they all simply escaped Greg's notice, in which case I'm still more eager to hear some examples from the advertisements.

 

[Thyunda]

I feel like I should also mention something else on Trevor's introduction.

Spoiler

It's not a 'scabby woman' he's fucking. It's Ashley. It's not just her boyfriend who shows up to confront Trevor, it's Johnny fuckin Klebitz. Y'know, protagonist of The Lost And Damned? Chapter head of the Alderney Lost MC? you imply that Trevor attacking Johnny is a sign of mindless violence. Johnny spent his own game visiting drug dealers to kick the shit out of them and 'rescue' Ashley. The fact he knew Trevor's name implies he's visited him before, and Trevor already made it clear that the Lost had been bothering him already.

Don't complain that the characters have no context and then ignore the context clues. Gawd.

 

[Jiveturkey124]

People, this Reviewer is in his mid Thirties with a Kid and a family.

He also knows very little about the Elder Scrolls series, even though he did an unboxing where he claimed he was a huge fan and couldnt even remember Cyrodill as being the home of the imperials. Sorry but hes not that intelligent and his point here isnt that well argued.

He just doesnt like the game because hes in a new stage of his life and hes trying to make a point for HIMSELF and his family, not for gamers.

Read between the lines you guys.

 

[Mutant1988]

I think the intent is to leave your moral values on the shelf and simply indulge yourself. The motivation for your characters action is simply "Because they wanted to" and "because they can", and perhaps your escapism in this case is simply adopting that mindset, for the narrative as much as for the gameplay.

Morals are something that should NEVER be put on a shelf.

If your entire sense of right vs. wrong can be tossed aside because it's inconvenient, or because it "gets in the way of fun", then where is your foundation?

Morals are for reality. In video games, I'm allowed to do things that go against my morals. I'm perfectly capable of recognizing the actions performed as bad, but since this isn't reality, I don't feel bad about performing them.

GTA wouldn't be so popular if it didn't make doing bad things fun. That has always been the point. But the message of the narrative is perhaps that while it's fun (As a video game), it's very bad people who do this sort of things. And your enjoyment is most likely heavily dependent on whether you interpret the narrative as insignificant flavour, satire or cynical realism.

 

[lacktheknack]

Good god. You people.

Video games are art. Video games are serious. Video games aren't just for kids, guiz. What's this? A video game that isn't happy and perfect? Violence that's horrific? Something that makes me morally uncomfortable? But I just want video games! *sadface and crying*

I can't even take this editorial seriously.

"It's just a game" is EXACTLY the same argument that people were initially trying to use.

Fascinating how the exact same thing is being said to attack someone in two entirely opposite ways. That's generally the first sign that an argument has been simplified to the point of uselessness.

...And that's exactly what you did! You didn't even address the key aspect, "I want choice", that the entire editorial is based on, because it didn't fit your easy-to-attack simplification! There should be a word for that.

Um. I didn't say it was just a game. That's the opposite of my argument. Did you read at all?

Yes, I did. I, however, did NOT claim that you said it was "just a game". Did YOU read at all?

You claimed that he doesn't like it because he just wanted a fun, unthreatening game. In the other thread, people were attacking him BECAUSE it's "just a fun game". Clearly, there's something wrong here, and I don't think it's Greg Tito.

Now, I pointed out that you constructed a simplification of his argument and attacked it, leaving out his entire damn point of not having a choice in how awful of a person he was (man, I REALLY wish there was a common, well-known word for that). Are you going to address that, or will you just quote me with a quarter-reply over and over and hope I go away?

 

[Carpenter]

"I don't like shows like TMZ either, why would I think it's fun or funny to engage in the exact behavior that pisses me off?"

Love the article but this pretty accurately represents my issue with this whole thing lately. That logic makes no freaking sense. You said before that you enjoyed running people over and killing random people in some GTA games yet you act like simulating TMZ is where we need to draw the line.

I don't like TMZ in real life either, nor do I like mass murderers, it doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy doing either of those things in a video game. I mean seriously think about what you are saying, is it really so hard to imagine why what you are describing might be really fun for some people?

I like the idea of playing an asshole in a game because I'm just a normal guy in real life that stays out of people's way and I never get anything out of it, I love to play in a simulated world where I can do some things I wouldn't do in real life but could, in theory, do.

I mean it's like people arguing that realism in games is awful. "Why would anyone want to play a realistic war game? Can't you just fight a real war?"
Yes kid, you can "just fight a real war" but that's not really the healthiest thing to do, physically or psychologically.



EDIT:
"A lot has changed since 2001, when GTA III came out. I got married, had two kids, and I'm now in charge of a website dedicated to discussing the experience of games and their impact on our culture. The world has witnessed acts of terrorism around the globe, and shootings here in the U.S. are frightfully common. I don't like to watch the news; I play games for an escape from all that shit."

I never understood the escapism argument. People used it as a reason to praise saints row even though the first three saints row games did nothing but glorify gruesome gang violence, sexual enslavement, and dealing drugs. That's not escaping reality, that's glorifying some pretty dark portions of it.

If you play games to "escape" from reality than perhaps you shouldn't play video games, you may have some psychological issues that you should deal with first. Personally I feel no need to escape from the world. It's not perfect, but it's amazing. I love this world, and I accept the carnage that comes with it. Yeah some people get sad when they watch "tragedies" involving a ton of people dying but it's natural, it's part of life. We have no shortage of people buddy, these killer storms, psychotic shooters, and chemical attacks are not really horrible events, just events that affect us in a hurtful way. Sometimes you need to get a painful shot in the arm to keep you from getting an infection and experiencing something far worse. That's what those "sad stories" on the news usually are, tornado wipes out a bunch of people? Ouch that hurts, but at least we are one step closer to not starving ourselves to death as we poison our own air and water.

And on that note, I don't play games to escape reality, I play for the same reason that I watch movies, read books, and listen to music. To enjoy myself, feel something, or gain some perspective on life.

 

[Carpenter]

I think the intent is to leave your moral values on the shelf and simply indulge yourself. The motivation for your characters action is simply "Because they wanted to" and "because they can", and perhaps your escapism in this case is simply adopting that mindset, for the narrative as much as for the gameplay.

Morals are something that should NEVER be put on a shelf.

If your entire sense of right vs. wrong can be tossed aside because it's inconvenient, or because it "gets in the way of fun", then where is your foundation?

Morals are for reality. In video games, I'm allowed to do things that go against my morals. I'm perfectly capable of recognizing the actions performed as bad, but since this isn't reality, I don't feel bad about performing them.

GTA wouldn't be so popular if it didn't make doing bad things fun. That has always been the point. But the message of the narrative is perhaps that while it's fun (As a video game), it's very bad people who do this sort of things. And your enjoyment is most likely heavily dependent on whether you interpret the narrative as insignificant flavour, satire or cynical realism.

I kind of love that idea and hope you are right.

I love GTA but playing the games as an adult, SA is just hard to get through. Most of the things he says about GTA 5 I feel about the characters of SA now. CJ is completely amoral yet I am supposed to sit there and watch him act casual with his friends. He straight up murders someone he doesn't know because "OG Loc" told him to. That's not psychopathy, that's stupidity so deep that it makes it impossible to respect the game after that.
Oh GTA 5 had a torture scene that made you feel bad? Good, torture should probably make you feel bad sometimes. Did you feel bad during that weird scene in SA when catalina literally rapes CJ? No? Of course not because it was played for laughs.

That right there makes me want to play GTA 5 now.

 

[Mutant1988]

EDIT:
"A lot has changed since 2001, when GTA III came out. I got married, had two kids, and I'm now in charge of a website dedicated to discussing the experience of games and their impact on our culture. The world has witnessed acts of terrorism around the globe, and shootings here in the U.S. are frightfully common. I don't like to watch the news; I play games for an escape from all that shit."

I never understood the escapism argument. People used it as a reason to praise saints row even though the first three saints row games did nothing but glorify gruesome gang violence, sexual enslavement, and dealing drugs. That's not escaping reality, that's glorifying some pretty dark portions of it.

Escapism isn't about escaping reality. It's about experiencing something which you can't in reality (That, or something that you want). If you're fed up with violence and death in reality, why would you go looking for it in your entertainment?

Perhaps Greg is just at a point in his life where he doesn't want nor need to be reminded of the darker depths of human nature and human society. You could question why then he would play a game like GTA V, but you have to remember some very important things:

1: It's his job.
2: Previous GTA were very tongue in cheek with it's violence and depravity. The shift towards a more serious narrative might have taken him by surprise and might not be as appealing to him.

But most of all, he criticize but one single aspect of the game. You don't have to share his view on it and might, by his description of it, rather be intrigued by the things that he finds unappealing. Thus my comment above about your enjoyment being heavily dependent on whether you interpret the narrative as insignificant flavour, satire or cynical realism. If not, then at least the rest of the review would give you an indication on whether this game is fit for you or not.

But he gave us his opinion on the game and that is arguably the point of a review. At least in equal measure with consumer information ("This is what the game is").

 

[skywolfblue]

Morals are for reality. In video games, I'm allowed to do things that go against my morals.

Laws are for reality. Laws lay out consequences for your actions.

Morals are the foundation for knowing/doing right vs. wrong for your soul. It means what kind of person you are even when when there are no consequences, nobody gets hurt, and nobody is watching. Sitting there contemplating murder isn't lawfully wrong, but it is morally wrong.

?Character? is also another term for it, the substance/glue that makes up who you are and what your thoughts consist of. It most certainly carries over to virtual worlds and video games.

Games allow for a lot of player agency. You make choices on who to shoot, not the TV making choices for you. The choices you make in games to some small extent reflect on your real life character. (I'm not saying that everyone who plays GTA is a mass murderer. But rather if that type of activity is something you really enjoy, perhaps it's time to do a little soul-searching)

I'm perfectly capable of recognizing the actions performed as bad, but since this isn't reality, I don't feel bad about performing them.

?Even though I knew the actions were wrong, since there are no consequences (AKA, ?it's not real?), I don't feel bad.? At least that is how I read it.

 

[Mutant1988]

Morals are the foundation for knowing/doing right vs. wrong for your soul. It means what kind of person you are even when when there are no consequences, nobody gets hurt, and nobody is watching. Sitting there contemplating murder isn't lawfully wrong, but it is morally wrong.

Good then that murdering a fictional character in a fictional world is so far removed from contemplating actual murder as you could possibly get.

And I would argue that without consequence (As in, real objective consequence, not just subjective), everyone would do horrible things because then those things wouldn't be horrible things.

You seem to believe that morals are an incorruptible truth, as opposed to just being our means to co-exist and grow as a group of living, thinking individuals.

I'm fine with setting aside my moral sensibilities when doing so in no way affects my ability to co-exist peacefully with other humans.

Basically - What I do with fictional characters have no bearing on what I do towards actual real people, so I have a freedom that I do not have in reality. So then why do I use this freedom to perform acts that would be horrible in reality? Simple: Out of curiosity and visceral thrill.

 

[carnex]

All I can say is that this new wave of social justice makes me sick. For all reviewers I would sugest to go an take a look at history of Hollywood and how the Hays Code got introduced.

Then go an see movies like "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" and "Lock, Stock and two smoking barrels" to see how several totally morally bankrupt characters make good story.

Now, I'm a PC gamer so GTA5 is a long wait for me, but given the past GTA games, I fully expected horrible human beings as main, and really all character in games. They never did have redeeming features worth mentioning. I actually found idea that your team had full blown psychopath or sociopath on refreshing since it's one of the rare times when game is honest about character.

 

[Greg Tito]

I feel like I should also mention something else on Trevor's introduction.

Spoiler

It's not a 'scabby woman' he's fucking. It's Ashley. It's not just her boyfriend who shows up to confront Trevor, it's Johnny fuckin Klebitz. Y'know, protagonist of The Lost And Damned? Chapter head of the Alderney Lost MC? you imply that Trevor attacking Johnny is a sign of mindless violence. Johnny spent his own game visiting drug dealers to kick the shit out of them and 'rescue' Ashley. The fact he knew Trevor's name implies he's visited him before, and Trevor already made it clear that the Lost had been bothering him already.

Don't complain that the characters have no context and then ignore the context clues. Gawd.

Then that's on me, man. I didn't play through the DLC for GTA IV, so I didn't make the connection.

Still, I feel like demanding the player to have played all previous pieces in a series in order to undertand context is another example of poor storytelling. The way the scene plays out I have no way of knowing whether he's an important character or not.

And Ashley looks pretty scabby to me.

 

[Thyunda]

I feel like I should also mention something else on Trevor's introduction.

Spoiler

It's not a 'scabby woman' he's fucking. It's Ashley. It's not just her boyfriend who shows up to confront Trevor, it's Johnny fuckin Klebitz. Y'know, protagonist of The Lost And Damned? Chapter head of the Alderney Lost MC? you imply that Trevor attacking Johnny is a sign of mindless violence. Johnny spent his own game visiting drug dealers to kick the shit out of them and 'rescue' Ashley. The fact he knew Trevor's name implies he's visited him before, and Trevor already made it clear that the Lost had been bothering him already.

Don't complain that the characters have no context and then ignore the context clues. Gawd.

Then that's on me, man. I didn't play through the DLC for GTA IV, so I didn't make the connection.

Still, I feel like demanding the player to have played all previous pieces in a series in order to undertand context is another example of poor storytelling. The way the scene plays out I have no way of knowing whether he's an important character or not.

And Ashley looks pretty scabby to me.

Eh it's cool. I wasn't totally serious in criticising you, I had a feeling you didn't play everything GTA. The clues, though, would've been in Trevor's subsequent rampage against the Lost and Johnny's biker leathers. I found the scene quite sad not because Trevor's a psychopath, but because as Johnny kept saying, Ashley was the death of him. That guy had clearly gone downhill. Him trying to pull Ashley off the drugs is what led him to Los Santos and drugs himself.

And...okay she's scabby. But I was trying to draw attention to it not being just any scabby woman, but the scabby woman who had a history of getting her biker boyfriend to beat up her dealers.

 

[Greg Tito]

All I can say is that this new wave of social justice makes me sick. For all reviewers I would sugest to go an take a look at history of Hollywood and how the Hays Code got introduced.

Then go an see movies like "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" and "Lock, Stock and two smoking barrels" to see how several totally morally bankrupt characters make good story.

Now, I'm a PC gamer so GTA5 is a long wait for me, but given the past GTA games, I fully expected horrible human beings as main, and really all character in games. They never did have redeeming features worth mentioning. I actually found idea that your team had full blown psychopath or sociopath on refreshing since it's one of the rare times when game is honest about character.

I'm not trying to change the game or condemn it. I think it has a right to exist just like anything else. I just didn't think it was as good or entertaining (story/character wise) than ANYTHING on offer in The Good the Bad and the Ugly, and Lock Stock. Shit, Reservoir Dogs is one of my favorite films. But even that had threads of character you could sympathize with and the shocking scenes were played bursting with context and drama instead of just being shocking.

If the Trevor scenes or the CEO thing I mentioned played out half as well as Mr. Blonde cutting off the cop's ear, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Greg

 

[Amnesiac Pigeon]

A character doesn't have to be likeable to be worth reading/watching/playing their story. They just have to be interesting.

 

[Frybird]

I cannot possibly imagine that GTA has nothing to "let them in on the joke"...they basically would have to cut out stuff shown in the trailers and TV Spots for this to be true.

Interesting. This is news to me. Would you mind sharing some examples?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf38HiYPMiI
You just need to look at the "Michael" and the "Trevor" Part, and the way thier statements cut to other footage, no one can tell me that this isn't highly sarcastic to the point of being tongue-in-cheek.

Other than that, outside the Trailers, it's GTA, you buy guns at stores called "Ammu-Nation", the main News Network is again called "Weazel News", thier Facebook is called "LifeInvader"....

I'd agree, but the problem for me is, both the Review and the Editorial fail to comment on that. It just scolds the game for giving the characters insufficient motivations (despite pointing out that they are driven by "malaise, greed and psychosis", wich usually is a sufficient motivation even in real life) and is sad about a darkly satirical game about crime and the shallowest of american lifestyles because these things are dark and sad.

The motivations make sense, but they still make for an unlikable character, and what the article and review argue is that the game lacks the proper context to render those motivations satisfying on some level - either by making the characters sympathetic despite these flaws or communicating to the audience that the characters are unlikable by design - thus leaving the audience by itself in its attempt to derive meaning from the events depicted in-game. Though I am in full agreement that the implication that "games should only ever be fun and never attempt to evoke a negative emotional response" is horribly misguided.

Everything in the Article seems to point out exactly that the characters are unlikeable by design. It's just that the game (luckily) doesn't seem to draw stink-lines or devil horns on them.

EDIT: Sorry, major error here, fixed now, need to go to bad

[...]the criminals of Grand Theft Auto V are depicted as turning to crime to escape their social circumstances[...]

One of wich is a rich guy with a midlife crisis and another one a psychopathic red-neck.....i really don't understand how one can misunderstand that those characters as "justified" in thier actions even if the game plays out from thier perspecive, where of course they probably do not wallow in self-loathing over everything they do.
Again, look at things like "Arrested Development", where almost all characters are horrible people acting selfish, annoying and dumb, and it does not need the narrator making statements about how horrible these characters are because it's pretty self-evident.