Grand Theft Auto 5 Made Me Sad.

[Terramax]

Sorry Greg, but I can't side with this article. NOW, at 35, you start to see how crass GTA is? NOW you get a conscience?

I can't help but feel that, if you were 23 years-old again, you would be laughing your arse off at the majority of what you played in GTAV.

Thing is, GTA has pretty much ALWAYS had such depictions of violence. Even in the very first game you're expected to shoot down hordes of people. I remember a mission where you have to run over a group of Elvis impersonators, with absolutely no valid reason to do so.

OK, sure, it was played for greater comical effect in previous games, with a more arcadey feel. But is that really the best excuse you have to justify disliking GTAV?

I mean, you had no control in missions in previous games, and you don't have control now. The only difference is that you've come to this realisation now, at 35, when you should've come to it well over a decade ago.

I don't see how having the choice to kill people makes it any more justifiable. If you were given free choice to run over a 5 year-old, and do so, or are forced to by the game itself, it makes little difference as I can see. In fact, I make the argument you should feel worse is you DO have a choice, and take it, to harm innocent people.

In fact, the PSX entries' characters weren't modeled after evil men - they were 100% modeled off of you! They were as terrible as you chose to be. Therefore, there's room for debate that this is the lesser of the evils in terms of those in the series. The great majority of the atrocities in this world has come by those that freely chose to kill people, not because they were forced to.

At least in GTAV, you can justify that, whilst you didn't enjoy the violence in GTAV's story, you went ahead with it because you were forced to. Back in GTA3, you were actively taking pleasure in killing people.

In Modern Warefare 2's case, you'd feel bad being forced to shoot innocents at the airport. But, the way I see it, you ought to feel even worse if you actively chose to do so.

I'm not defending GTAV. I'm sure it does have terrible writing. Then again, I think they've ALL had terrible writing. It's just that you, along with so many others, have given the series more credit than it deserves. Although perhaps GTAIV was that much better. I don't know, I didn't play it.

The issue I have with the article is you claim to have the higher moral ground when, thinking about it, it reads to me more that you've only just learnt morality in a way which you should've done so well over a decade ago.

 

[Raikas]

Please pay attention. I never said a reviewer should be a fan of the thing he is reviewing, I'm saying a person that hates racing games shouldn't be the one to review GT. Get it?

Except that Tito didn't say he hates the genre to which GTA belongs - he talked about enjoying the earlier games in the past. He mentions it more than once (would you prefer if I added snarky "please pay attention" to match your tone?). At this point there are plenty of people who have similarly been playing the games for years - that hardly makes him a part of some minor demographic group.

You act like getting people that don't like a genre to review games in that genre would make it better. It wouldn't, you would just get more of stuff like the GTA 5 review.

I don't see what's wrong with that review - I understand that people who like it more don't agree with the score, but in terms of the actual content it does succeed in giving me a sense of what the game is like. It makes it clear why the writer doesn't like it and based on that I can decide whether I share his angle or not and I can go from there.

Here's a great review for a racing game.

"This game sucks, all you do is race. There is no point to it, I have a job and a family and way more important things to do. You don't have a nice little shootout or a game of tetris, you just race, the whole time, with no context or overarching story to drive me to continue. There are modes and stuff but I was just too bored to give a crap, all you do is race in cars on a track. You can get different cars or change the cars or something but it's pointless because all you will do with them is race which is always boring because it's just a bunch of cars trying to go farther and faster than the other cars.
I can think of no redeeming feature of this game. 3 out of 5"

3/5 hardly suggests "no redeeming features". If someone genuinely hated a game I'd expect to see 1s or 0s. And even if that were the case, the writing is what determines whether it's a good review or not - books of Ebert's low-scoring reviews (one of which is actually called "Your Movie Sucks") are actually popular because they're fun to read.

Your example of a racing game is a poor review, but that's because it doesn't actually tell me anything about the game. If the reviewer talked more specifically about what bored them or which elements seemed pointless that would be fine.

 

[Genocidicles]

I thought it was made pretty clear why Lester wanted the Steve Jobs/Mark Zuckerberg hybrid dead.

When he gives you the mission he's ranting and raving about how Zuckerjobs makes all of his users personal details public and Lester seemed like the kind of guy obsessed with privacy. Plus he mentions that Zuckerjobs sells shitty, overly expensive products that the user cant modify.

It's a bit petty, but he's got a reason for it.

Plus I enjoyed the mission. Jobs and Zuckerberg were/are cunts, so being able to kill a fictional version of them is fine with me.

 

[M920CAIN]

In any case, I think we can all agree, that aging is something each gamer has to face. You cannot enjoy the same violence at 30 as you did at 20. You gotta think that something's wrong with a society of people who play a crime simulator game and the fact that we as players anticipate a crime simulator game so much, but that software developer mission isn't a prime example by any means.

I disagree. It's perfectly possible for even older gamers to enjoy the carnage of games like GTA. I still replay GTA 3 (my favorite one) every now and then, and enjoy it as much now that I'm 25 as i did when i was 13-14.

Rather, the thing that changes are our standards. They always get higher, and that's why i can understand Gregs review just fine. People say he puts too much emphasis on story, but if people only want carnage, why not save the $60 and go play an old GTA game? Because you can now run over dogs too or what?

I guess I made a mistake when I used the word "enjoy". I enjoy replaying previous games from my past, GTAs included, but I was trying to say that I look at them different now than I did then. I'm not saying I don't enjoy the violence in them, cause I'd be lying, but I am more aware and more sensitive to most issues presented in context or out of context, than I was when I was younger. I am pretty sure this applies to most people, those I know anyway.

For example: When I played GTA III for the 1st time I was myself about 13-14 if I remember correctly. Back then, the mindless carnage and police chasing were actually the only things that kept my attention, shameful now maybe, but true then. I didn't know GTA 3 had a story until much later. Now, as I'm older, I can't stand playing a game, a story driven game more likely, just for mindless running and gunning. I try to always have story motivation for my deeds, either them being good or bad, of course I exclude multiplayer games from this context need, cause they tend to be competitive and being the best/last alive is the more or less ultimate goal and not how you reach the goal. Anyway, that was what I was refering too. Not the enjoyment factor really, but the way we as "older guys" are getting immersed into the game. That may not hold true to everyone, but I think we're a fair bunch.

So, yes, you are right. I guess we develop higher standard, which itself can be a good or a bad thing.

Based on all the tl;dr, I still think the GTA V missions were justifiable and not over the top for GTA standards, both the hacker and torture mission.

 

[antipunt]

I do have to admit that I never thought about it until now, but Niko was pretty likable in GTAIV

 

[O maestre]

Adding my voice to the choir, "have you played the other GTA games?" obviously you have Mr. Tito, and story telling was never the hallmark of the series, freedom, exploration and violence were. The characters being malicious psychopaths helps explain why one the way to the mission you ran over 100 people for no reason. In GTA 3 you were a violent thug just out to get payed, no grand motive beyond that.

 

[Racecarlock]

Grand Theft Auto 5 Made Me Sad.

Playing as these horrible people needs stronger writing to back it up.

Read Full Article

Here's how I see it.

The characters, at least in my mind, are directly satirizing the players. Think about it.

Michael, the guy who likes to shoot people and has anger issues that result in shit getting destroyed who has it all but is bored because he wants the thrill of the chase back.

Trevor, the guy who flies planes and loves just killing people and murder and mayhem.

Franklin, the guy who likes just stealing cars.

They are you and you are them. They represent, ultimately, what most players do and what most players go through. For example, at the end of san andreas people will still steal cars and planes and get in chases. They will still trick out cars, improve aiming by shooting people, and be generally psychotic.

Franklin's on cars, michael's on shooting, trevor is the psychotic guy. They are you and you are them.

In that regard, I kind of like them for that. For the first time I can play as characters that relate directly to the way I play GTA, which happens to be making the protagonists in the games like a combination of the SAW guy and a rampaging terminator. I finally feel like I'm not going much out of character with any of them. Trevor I especially like since he's into the nuttiest shit. This one time I switched and he woke up from a night of drinking on a mountain in a dress. I like that I find these characters relatable to my general attitudes towards any game in the sandbox genre. I find it kind of cool.

 

[Epitome]

M'kay I finished GTAV so now I feel informed enough to comment on all this. I disagreed with the initial review but decided to see for myself. What I came away from was a great game that had really well written characters. They are simplistic for sure, Michael is selfish, Franklin's ambitious and Trevor's impulsive. They have basic drives but they are not poorly written or conceived. The story revolves around three people working together and all of them are really only out for themselves. They feel more like a marriage of convenience than friends or allies.

First of all, the Lifehacker mission. I really don't like it being called terrorism when it was straight up murder. Okay it was a public execution but that was the point. Listening to Lester, or the world you know that company is pure evil. Even the device that's being unveiled is supposed to sync with other devices, like it or not, and siphon and publish their data. Lester's character might as well be called Reddit. He feels like the perfect blend of all that outrages those people, only given agency to do something about it. So yes, it's a surprise when the bomb goes off, but is one more person really that important considering all the other people killed to get to that point of the mission. What because it's a CEO and not a pedestrian it's suddenly terrorism and some monstrous crime?

As for the torture mission, it turned my stomach and I don't normally have that happen. I found it to be a great set piece though, why are the people who complain about having to play through this sequence complaining that they had to do it when they never raise a word in protest about their own governments doing the exact same. It forces you to be a part of that violence, then slap you in the face with a speech about how pointless it was. It would make anybody question is it worth doing that to another human being. As for it not affecting Trevor, why would it. He's a psychopath, he does not function like the player does. He's not Jack Bauer he's Hannibal Lector.

I respect Tito's right to his opinion and that he feels the game will offend the sensibilities of certain types of people. It's valid, but I don't think it's fair to paint the characters as poorly written. They are very well crafted monsters. I found them much more entertaining than Niko and his constant whinging as he mowed down pedestrians, or John Marsten and his "I just want to be left alone, but first I'll tie this woman to the tracks for an achievement." They are bad people, motivated by selfish goals and a complete lack of empathy for anything that isn't advancing their goals, including each other.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

The problem I find with reviews like this is that it doesn't acknowledge the plain brutality of the previous games, whilst this game is actually creative with it.

GTAV isn't revolutionary in gameplay or storytelling, no. But it acknowledges its setting and plays with it.

Michael? Parody of the "american dream." Looks perfect on the outside, but enjoys crime, has awful family issues, and is constantly trying to get the easy way out of his predicaments.

Franklin? Antihero wannabe who keeps trying to justify what he does. Casually mentions killing people. Even in the bad endings, he's telling his victims that he's "sorry." Yet is still closest to the "everyman."

Trevor? The GTA protagonists of the past, but with characterization. Murders a men in cold blood and is filled with constant rage but he also: reprimands his subordinates for calling a woman a *****, criticizes Michael's lack of good parenting, and is disgusted by the racism of the LAPD. The classic criminal with a heart of gold.

Hell, the best ending of the game is when all three guys survive because Franklin maintains his loyalty to both Trevor and Michael. They work together.

 

[Epitome]

You might wanna spoiler tag this part of your post before somebody who hasn't played it out reads it?

Spoiler

Hell, the best ending of the game is when all three guys survive because Franklin maintains his loyalty to both Trevor and Michael. They work together.

 

[nixt black]

Having played the game I cannot disagree more with Greg's opinion, and this is from someone who only started enjoying the GTA series with San Andreas; a game that provided a character with a modicum of principles.

GTA V is far less depressing and worrying than GTA IV (which I enjoyed)as it manages, in the main, to avoid the ludo-narrative dissonance that made the action in GTA Iv feel awkward and unpleasant to perform. It achieves this by providing such OTT and repulsive characters (ESPECIALLY Trevor) that the entire game's violence develops a slapstick comedic bent. Furthermore, Niko's tale had a bitter darkness within the parody of the american dream, whilst GTA v is far easier going with its lampooning of modern day culture.

Incidentally, I love Breaking Bad but at no point has the series looked at the social ramifications of meth use; it just assumes that the viewer is aware that meth causes all kinds of health issues and is not in need of some heavy handed insight. The series does, however, show how the production of meth causes so much misery for Walt and jessie, so the lifestyle is hardly glamorised. I feel GTA v does a similar thing; all the characters are disliked or disenchanted with life and none are shown as role models for a good life. The game just deals with all this is a tongue in cheek fashion.

 

[AngelBlackChaos]

I had a bit of a conflict with God of War for this reason as well. When I have to be forced to push a man begging about his wife and kids up to be sacrificed, yeah, it bothers me. As a person, I don't sacrifice others for my own gain. In many games, killing innocent people is pretty iffy to me, but when a game is specifically like "Kill random innocent in a horrible death to continue" It really bothers me on a personal level.

 

[Psychobabble]

I had a bit of a conflict with God of War for this reason as well. When I have to be forced to push a man begging about his wife and kids up to be sacrificed, yeah, it bothers me. As a person, I don't sacrifice others for my own gain. In many games, killing innocent people is pretty iffy to me, but when a game is specifically like "Kill random innocent in a horrible death to continue" It really bothers me on a personal level.

Well too bad because this game isn't written around what YOU want. The main emphasis is the narrative, that's all that matters, and how dare you think that as the PLAYER you have any right to complain that your own character acts in a way you never would. How else could we all see what brilliant story writers theses guys are if your character only ever got to do what you wanted? Sheesh!

You know I think player participation is exactly the albatross that's holding the whole genre back. From now on I vote that except for a few button clicks players shouldn't be allowed to be involved in the games actions what so ever.

 

[AngelBlackChaos]

I had a bit of a conflict with God of War for this reason as well. When I have to be forced to push a man begging about his wife and kids up to be sacrificed, yeah, it bothers me. As a person, I don't sacrifice others for my own gain. In many games, killing innocent people is pretty iffy to me, but when a game is specifically like "Kill random innocent in a horrible death to continue" It really bothers me on a personal level.

Well too bad because this game isn't written around what YOU want. The main emphasis is the narrative, that's all that matters, and how dare you think that as the PLAYER you have any right to complain that your own character acts in a way you never would. How else could we all see what brilliant story writers theses guys are if your character only ever got to do what you wanted? Sheesh!

You know I think player participation is exactly the albatross that's holding the whole genre back. From now on I vote that except for a few button clicks players shouldn't be allowed to be involved in the games actions what so ever.

I never said it was. Rude much?

Secondly, its like any other piece of media. I can like or dislike anything within a game, piece of art, or movie without killing the writers anyone else. Stop acting like an opinion equates as much. I can have an issue with a part of a story, and still say a game is good.

You really need to calm down.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

Sorry, but the criticism to me just reads as "this isn't the game I imagined in my head, so therefore, I'm disappointed." You kind of have to accept it on its own terms and try to understand what it's trying to say. This isn't a Real World. It's a satirical world where strippers get "horny" when you give them money and you flirt with them by asking them to tell you how great you are. To top it all off, they "want" to be touched and will actually have sex with you, showing that the whole minigame has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with making fun of the idea of strip clubs.

The whole facebook/terrorism thing was a little half baked, but it was all in line with the shallow world of "take, take, take." I also feel the unlikable characters were a direct response to Niko of GTA IV and the whole idea of a sympathetic character in this sick environment. If you're looking for a character to "root" for, you're not going to find it, but I feel like the gameplay itself is there to make up for that deficit. It reminds me of the train robbery sequence on Breaking Bad. You shouldn't want Walt to succeed, but the tension and editing make you want him to, much in the way you would sense the consequence of failure in a game like this. That's just me, though.

 

[LeeArac]

I never said it was. Rude much?

Secondly, its like any other piece of media. I can like or dislike anything within a game, piece of art, or movie without killing the writers anyone else. Stop acting like an opinion equates as much. I can have an issue with a part of a story, and still say a game is good.

You really need to calm down.

And you might want to re-read the post you were responding to. I might be wrong here, but I think when Psychobabble got to talking about removing all player interaction 'except for a few button clicks' /from a game/ it might have been a subtle hint that they were - just maybe - being a little sarcastic.

 

[Lev The Red]

I haven't played it yet, but everyone talking about what horrible people the protagonists has me excited.

Why is it that movies or books that follow horrible monsters like A Clockwork Orange or American Psycho are lauded, but games that do the same thing are vilified? Heroism is hackneyed. I want mean. I want morally reprehensible. I want evil.

Because... why not? Why can't we be like books and movies? Why can't our characters rob banks, torture people, and kill indiscriminately? It's only fair.

 

[nixt black]

I had a bit of a conflict with God of War for this reason as well. When I have to be forced to push a man begging about his wife and kids up to be sacrificed, yeah, it bothers me. As a person, I don't sacrifice others for my own gain. In many games, killing innocent people is pretty iffy to me, but when a game is specifically like "Kill random innocent in a horrible death to continue" It really bothers me on a personal level.

Well too bad because this game isn't written around what YOU want. The main emphasis is the narrative, that's all that matters, and how dare you think that as the PLAYER you have any right to complain that your own character acts in a way you never would. How else could we all see what brilliant story writers theses guys are if your character only ever got to do what you wanted? Sheesh!

You know I think player participation is exactly the albatross that's holding the whole genre back. From now on I vote that except for a few button clicks players shouldn't be allowed to be involved in the games actions what so ever.

I never said it was. Rude much?

Secondly, its like any other piece of media. I can like or dislike anything within a game, piece of art, or movie without killing the writers anyone else. Stop acting like an opinion equates as much. I can have an issue with a part of a story, and still say a game is good.

You really need to calm down.

Ye gawds! The response was in humour and in agreement with your point. Maybe re-read?

 

[JCAll]

The difference between GTA3 and GTAV I think is that GTA3 never tried to make you empathize with the main character. He was a voiceless emotionless blank, mowing down cops and civilians in the same silence as when he was stepping over the bodies of his murdered comrades. That didn't make him less of a monster, he's just a monster that's easier to project into, which make you the monster. And I'm okay with that. The protagonists of GTAV are monsters all on their own, with no input from you. Unlikable monsters at that, but unlikable monsters that the game expects you to form an attachment to.

A game that tries to make you feel bad for playing it is going to make me not want to play it.
If we all just muted the TV and made up our own story the game would probably be much better for it.

 

[M920CAIN]

The more bad I hear about this game, the more I want it out on the PC so I can plays it properly. A game that says, hey crime is about getting what you want, not being a nice guy while killing, stealing, jacking and all the drizzle.