Grand Theft Auto 5 Review - People Suck

[RicoADF]

Okay so if I get this right:

Its a GTA game full of Roman clones? The character no one liked? The character that drove a bowling ball shaped stake into the American titties of GTA IV?

So its basically like every GTA ever?

Basically yeah, it feels like a modern GTA San Andreas, even with a CJ like character. It's too early to tell if it goes downhill but sofar it's been the lovable GTA I've known since the 90's. I don't get what he meant by them being more evil, the mute in GTA3 killed when told to do so, as did all the other protagonist. Honestly Niko has been the only one that's come across as a "does what he has to do to survive", all the others are just like these 3 new characters. Criminals (and that isn't a bad thing, it's what GTA is portraying).

 

[Something Amyss]

Sounds like everyone got what they needed in the review and are merely protesting the conclusions the author came to. If, after reading the review, you find that the reasons for docked marks are favorable in your mind and you can tell that you'll enjoy the game because of that... That's a pretty damn good review!

Indeed. I think Greg reasoned his points well, but I don't think that'll harm the game for me, so it's still all good as far as I'm concerned.

I've read from multiple reviewers that there is a torture seen that you are forced to participate in. You torture someone and you don't have a choice. This part may have really rubbed the reviewer the wrong way.

This may rub a lot of people the wrong way, since they like to play nice. They like to choose how low their characters will go. But then, that's kind of the point here, isn't it? We're playing a specific narrative, right?

I still love you Greg in spite of you not loving senseless violence any more.

Didn't he praise Saints Row 4 in this review? It read that way to me, and you don't get much more senseless than that.

 

[Rezeak]

I didn't like this review because Greg spent too long justifying his low score I would of like to know when he said "Get Grand Theft Auto V if you're prepared to play as characters with no justifiable motivation for doing awful things to people" does that mean the gameplay isn't anything new or nothing worth noting.

Just seems a little over the top to spend so much time talking/writing about the main characters and little to no time on new features the games brings and how much if any has it improved over GTA IV or Saint's row and I would of loved to know how long the game was and how missions/side quests worked.

 

[thisbymaster]

The Old GTA games could get away with it was because you didn't really play as a person just a avatar without family, history or really friends. You can't give people characterization, family, hopes and dreams then just have them act completely insane doing whatever they feel you feel like. They wanted to get back some of the wackyness that saint's row took but couldn't shoehorn it in with serious characters. Basically they really should have made a Breaking Bad video game.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Just one thing I forgot to add: So "killing not being fun but actually unpleasant" is NOT pushing the boundaries of video-games?

Are you saying that we should STRIVE for mindless run-and-gun violence in video-games instead of an immersive experience with a narrative that actually gives killing some wheight?

The game doesn't give killing any weight, unfortunately. I wish it did. I wish there was any remorse displayed by the characters. Instead you get mindless screaming and lame quips.

(serious question)In regards to your wish that the characters displayed remorse, does this mean that game like the Hitman series are unappealing to you for the very same reason that you seem to dislike how GTA V has the main characters react to violence? I mean Mr.47 isn't necessary know for his warm personality [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIktJiX5ExM&t=14s]. Could it just be that you don't like playing as characters where there isn't some justification for their malevolent behavior?

Come to think of it, from the sounds of things it seems like Trevor is Rock Star's take on a James Lynch(from Kayne&Lynch) type character.

 

[Uriain]

That not even accounting for the fact that the paralel universe of GTA V is already a whirlpool of over the top immorality. I got to thinking about it, and everyone and everything in the universe is, by default, a violent and twisted farce.


Even the Djs in the games are quite morally questionable with not much else going on besides self serving agendas. Lazlow is a creep. Fernando Martinez is a creep. Sage is a creep. The talk show guests all degenerate into caricatures of whatever viewpoint they seem to defend. A kind of world where an 80s action hero shoots the talk show host in a roid rage is a world where a CJ or a Niko make more sense.

Now, it's perfectly fine to dislike that world, and sometimes the satire is too unrelenting and too unsubtle for it to work. But when one defends it in the past again, therein lies the incongruence. Exacerbated by the fact that neither Michael or Franklin are anywhere in the same league as Trevor.

It's not about standing up to an unpopular opinion. Susan Arendt got flak on these pages for criticising Ni No Kuni, but she made a valid point about the grinding being offputing for her. It's more about how badly that opinion is defended that prompted me to comment. Using the Breaking Bad analogy everyone seems to be using, Greg's review sounds like someone who liked all Breaking Bads up until season 5 before deciding "hey, Heisenberg's a dick in this season" and then argue that he should be more like in 4th season when, you know...



... He was just as big a dick, really.


The right to an opinion does not make every opinion valid or articulated; a bad trait in a reviewer, a downright travesti for a magazine editor.

**I have not played the game, only watched some video's, so take my comment with a grain of salt. **

I have to disagree with you perception of Greg's article. I think its more then valid for a reviewer to state a case for a game and base it partially on their opinion. It is a review after, and while you should try to remain objective, there are certain aspects of your personality which will always creep in.

If Greg found that the characters were simply villainous, that's a fairly apt statement. You also touch on it above how the entire "universe" portrays this quality. From the video's and play I have seen I can see why Greg would make the comments he did, and again I have not played the game, but I do feel there is some validity there. Trailers and game play seem to be either centered around golf/hand gliding, driving or mass murder, which leaves you with an odd empty sense of the game on a whole. Story could be fantastic (I hope it is).

You have three characters; a Gangster (Franklin) a Mafioso (Michael) and a seemingly ultra unhinged madman (Trevor). Those three characters straight out of the gate, shouldn't inspire you with "deeply narrative driven story and characters with redeeming qualities". I would expect murder (which clearly is in the game), and when that is a primary aspect of the game, you don't feel like its a serious thing, it becomes almost ridiculous, or as Greg said, just makes you feel like your controlling three bad guys.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am hoping its still a good game, and I can get behind most stories and game play hooks. I want to enjoy a new style of game play with 3 interchangeable characters and some fun mini games. I just ALSO believe that, from my limited non-game play experience, there is a valid reason to find aspects of this game in the same light as Greg did. Also note he didn't say it was a bad game, and he didn't say "don't buy this". He just emphasized his opinion on the level of violence. Sorry for long post

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

Waaaaaayyy too much of the review spent complaining that you play as bad guys. I don't really have a problem with the criticism or the verdict I just feel like I got very little insight into what the game is actually like from this review.

 

[l3o2828]

This comment section is a mess.
Let me contribute:
I had trouble swallowing the characters in The Last Of Us, i know i won't like to deal with the total lack of likeability of these characters here in GTA V.
And don't you dare to bring up Vice City into this, Vice city was a cartoony looking game.
GTA V looks way too realistic for me to shrug questionable ethics aside.

 

[Dimitriov]

Wait... the city in GTA V is called "The Saints"?

That's actually pretty hilarious.

Anyway sounds like a great game to me! I can't personally understand why you'd care that your protagonists have redeeming qualities... sometimes it's just great to be the bad guy!

But, with this thread being the way it is, I'll just add that I have no problem with the review itself.

 

[nitrium oxide]

So basically what you're saying is that GTA V is great for those who always go for the Chaotic Evil alignment in RPGs.

 

[Demyx26]

Grand Theft Auto V Review - People Suck

You can?t deny the game?s achievements, but the writing will push you away.

Read Full Article

"Forcing players to murder people, not in a gamey "I killed you to complete a goal" way that defines this medium, but in a terrorizing and demeaning way, is not what will make videogames great. Rockstar had a chance to elevate, and they wasted it on portraying characters you don't want to spend five minutes with, let alone the hours it would take to play through the game's story."

"Forcing players to murder people, not in a gamey "I killed you to complete a goal" way that defines this medium, but in a terrorizing and demeaning way."

Because it's bad when a medium makes ending human life... not "gamey"?

I don't even care about the game - I'm not getting it - but this review is just poor. I can't respect an opinion when your biggest complaint is murdering people wasn't zaney enough. Maturity. Impact. Intensity. Horror. Discomfort. Morbid curiosity. Fuck all of them, they don't feel nice. -_-

That isn't what he's saying. Such gratuitous violence without the proper tone makes the game feel psychopathic, it might add to the game's American critique, but that doesn't mean it has to be pleasant to experience. And as such, the game can be difficult to play and enjoy.

 

[Revolutionary]

3.5 / 5 is good. People tend to forget that. God forbid he have an opinion if his own. CONFORM CONFORM!
Sheesh.

 

[archvile93]

Grand Theft Auto V Review - People Suck

You can?t deny the game?s achievements, but the writing will push you away.

Read Full Article

"Forcing players to murder people, not in a gamey "I killed you to complete a goal" way that defines this medium, but in a terrorizing and demeaning way, is not what will make videogames great. Rockstar had a chance to elevate, and they wasted it on portraying characters you don't want to spend five minutes with, let alone the hours it would take to play through the game's story."

"Forcing players to murder people, not in a gamey "I killed you to complete a goal" way that defines this medium, but in a terrorizing and demeaning way."

Because it's bad when a medium makes ending human life... not "gamey"?

I don't even care about the game - I'm not getting it - but this review is just poor. I can't respect an opinion when your biggest complaint is murdering people wasn't zaney enough. Maturity. Impact. Intensity. Horror. Discomfort. Morbid curiosity. Fuck all of them, they don't feel nice. -_-

I think the difference is if you're going to add an unavoidable horrific death at some point in a game, you want it to be seen as horrific, with the characters reacting accordingly, showing discomfort, hating themselves for doing it, but feeling that there's no alternative, stuff like that, and above all, give it a meaningful reason for being there. I can't really make any comments of merits on this, since I haven't played the game, but the way the reviewer describes it, the issue is that it just feels completely pointless. Your character murders someone in cold blood for no reason, dusts off his hands, and whistles on his merry way with nary a thought about it afterward, and it never comes up in the game again. At that point it feels like it was just the developers wanting something purely for shock value without any real reason for being there. It'd be like if in an entire hypothetical game, the opening cutscene has your character grab some woman, do indescribable things to her, murder her, and have it never come up or impact anything again. I imagine a lot of people would have issue with that, since it has no reason, it'd just be there for just because the developer could. Actually I'm almost posistive this is how it would be criticized, since that's pretty much what happened with the Hotline Miami 2 demo.

 

[haruvister]

An interesting review that dares to step back and consider the game's moral core, without recourse to wild reactionary criticism. Good stuff.

 

[awnman]

i am a person who is not really a familiar of the GTA series to begin with so i won't comment on the review itself, but i am very proud of the escapist community. We have only managed to have 15 warnings and 1 suspension. Thats only slightly over 1 per page. i was expecting 2 or 3 per page.

 

[Jiveturkey124]

Why is everyone making a big deal out of a review by a random staffer at The Escapist?

Is Greg Tito's opinion really that important to all of you?

It just sounded like it wasnt his type of game, he probably prefers characters that have a strong moral compass and relatable (Good) Traits.

The only thing I can say was "Wrong" with his review, was that Rockstar "Had a chance to elevate".

This is the same company that got flaked by the mainstream media for the Hot Coffee Mod that was put out by the games community with code not actually in the finished playable product.

To be honest, if Rockstar gave a shit about making "Nice" characters at this point, I dont think they would be as popular.

I mean if were going off the reviewers logic, that there wasnt a clear motivation for the three playable characters immoral actions in the game, thus making in unrelatable. Then couldnt the same thing be said for every game where we have a Hero with no clear motivation for why they do good?

Why do the damn Ninja Turtles do good? Fucking Splinter tells them to? How is that relatable motivation? Does that inherently make Ninja Turtles an average show simply for their lack of clear motivation to do good?

Or is TMNT an above average show because the reason you watch Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is to see Shelled-Reptiles fighting giant rats with swords and nunchuks while scarfing down pizza?

 

[VoidWanderer]

Having played some of this game, I can honestly say, "Thank god for Saints Row 4 to be released on PS3 in Australia, so I can stop playing characters with as cliched writing as this game." It is a good game, it just isn't great.

IN MY OPINION!!!