GTAV's Characters Are Just Bad

[Nautical Honors Society]

What is with the Escapist and hating GTAV for not having moral/relatable characters?

Sometimes stories are about terrible evil people doing terrible evil things...not every story has a lovable character. Not every story needs one. Sometimes that makes stories far more interesting.

I enjoy the story and characters in GTAV. The fact that people can't accept a story about 3 horrible people committing crimes makes me very worried for the evolution of video games as a story telling medium.

Critiques like this stifle creativity.

 

[Compatriot Block]

I love the double standard people have with this game.

You think the plot is terrible and the characters are unsympathetic? Everyone bends over backwards to defend your right to a differing opinion.

You think that the plot is interesting and that the characterization is good because criminals don't have to be sympathetic? Butthurt fanboy.

But that's just a problem I have with the Escapist in general. Nobody bats an eyelash when people state "Halo is shit" as fact (by the way, when you state that one game "is shit" but also hold some other game sacred, maybe you should reconsider your tone), but if someone says something like "David Cage is a terrible writer" then everyone suddenly develops an urge to argue.

 

[Evonisia]

I was a big fan of Bellic, especially when he like myself had to put with everyone's else's bullshit in the game. The three characters of GTA V are just humorous as opposed to well written. It's as if they're trying to hide the fact that they couldn't be bothered finishing the story by bringing up the Big One for a triumphant ending. It's probably because there are multiple endings so they didn't feel the need to wrap it up when there is an equally canon ending in which the fates are changed drastically.

 

[weirdee]

hey, a game with featureless squares CAN be engaging, and I bet I don't even have to mention which game it is

which is to say, it's disappointing when a writer only goes halfway with making a neat character

of course, I can't tell because I haven't played this game yet, so I'm getting off at this stop

 

[head desk tricycle]

The torture scene is just manufactured controversy, you know this. I think the writers even purposely confused the scene's tone as much as they possibly could, out of sheer terror that it might accidentally mean something.
Also, I don't think GTA games need those kinds of character arcs. This game probably has the best characters it could possibly have. For your standard issue GTA-style protagonist, you've got Trevor, an unapologetic wisecracking meth-cooking redneck coming out of the sticks in his dirty old pickup to wreak mayhem on the civilized world; so he's a lot of fun, obviously. Then you've got Michael, who is an obvious affectionate continuation of the most beloved GTA-style protagonist of all time, Tommy Vercetti. And then there's Franklin, the foil, and simultaneously an obvious though decidedly non-affectionate continuation of Carl Johnson, the first GTA protagonist with the absurd tendency to develop motives which were strongly at odds with those of the player. So it's an effective return to form, while also being a successful attempt to demonstrate some self-awareness and repair the damage they caused to the series. Not to say that the game doesn't have issues; but the characters themselves are strong.

 

[Battenberg]

At this point the GTA V 'fanboys' (for lack of a better word) must be deliberately misinterpreting this argument by now. The counter-argument I'm consistently seeing is that "it's a game about crime/ criminals, did you really expect them to be good guys?!" but the point Yahtzee's making goes beyond the protagonists' morality and is based on their character. If the character you're playing as is doing something extremely immoral they need a solid motivator for doing so, ideally something the player can relate to or, failing that, at least something that makes sense and is consistent. Perhaps you could have a protagonist without any solid motivation but really there needs to be some kind of character arc or change to make up for it otherwise all you have is an inconsistent somewhat bland mess.

 

[FallenMessiah88]

Perhaps Rockstar just didn't want to destroy the status quo. It seems to me like they put a lot of effort into crafting three unique main characters, with three distinct personalities, which would then take the place of any real character arc.

 

[Bastard King]

Even though Mr.K repeatedly states that he would have given you information anyway? Even though the guy you're assassinating is very likely not a criminal? Even though Mr.K is in no way affiliated with any criminal organisation of any kind? Even though the two missions leading to the torture had you gunning down government agents who were just doing their job?

Yes. The torture worked a hundred percent in your favor and nobody in the game consequences for it, while at the same time it was still trying to pass itself off as anti-torture.

GTA, not just this game, but the entire series, is based around murder and fucking over the other guy to get ahead, why is it then that torture is just totally untouchable? It's not like rape or other sexual violence so it deserves to be in another conversation althogether, it's still just violent domination over another human being. As such, why is this depiction of torture just unacceptable? Is it because it made you uncomfortable? If so, congratulations, you have arrived at the point. But, I guess I'm just a fucking idiot.

That's a load of bullshit. That's like saying, "Whoa, so you think Glee is the worst thing Fox has ever associated themselves with? Is having gay people on TV just unnaceptable for you?"

The torture's not the problem at all. I've played plenty of games where torture is a main component. Red Dead Redemption for instance, has a scene where John Marston tortures Capitán De Santa for information, and it leads him into an ambush. Nothing like that happens in GTA. Mr. K doesn't come up in the rest of the game at all to either help or hurt anyone, and you got exactly the information you were looking for by torturing him.

It's bad writing, like the Republican Space Ranger cartoons, or pretty much anything Lazlow Jones was involved in writing.

 

[Acton Hank]

I love it how this article manages to state my big problem with so many games: The lack of motivation that I can relate to.

I really fear the day when a GTA protagonist watches my little pony and plays videogames between murder sprees.

Aha. Do you want to say something intelligent or can I put yourself on my mental ignore list?

I love it how this article manages to state my big problem with so many games: The lack of motivation that I can relate to.

Exactly why is having lots of money a hard motivation to relate to?

Because "he wants money" is not a good motivation to drive a story. Why does he want money? Is it just plain boring greed? If so, are there consequences? No? Then why the fuck should I care? There is no real hook to get me invested.

Explain to my why I should give a damn about a character who has no motivation besides the green?

As opposed to plain old boring "insert motivation here"

You could make anything sound bad when you word it like that.

 

[Annihilist]

Yahtzee, you are the most thoughtful person I've seen in gaming, and definitely on this website - why did you not do more Expo panels?

 

[Kingjackl]

I may be coming from a completely different position than Yahtzee in that I actually think the story and characters of GTAV are good, but I feel he may be missing the point of the characters.

Once again, he forgets that Michael did not directly choose to go back into his life of crime 'for the riches', he made some characteristically poor decisions that forced him to do it. His whole arc is coming to terms with the fact that he likes being a criminal, but is ashamed of this and also alienates his family as a result. I don't even get where he's coming from about Franklin; he just described Franklin's central conflict without explaining how it was bad or inconsistent. He wants to move on from the ghetto, but he's loyal to his old friends as well. That's just it.

As for Trevor, I don't see where the 'free-spirited rogue' description is coming from either; he's a monstrous psychopath, plain and simple. As a representation of the typical sandbox player, he's arguably a more accurate depiction than the whimsical caricatures that Saints Row features (though not saying that Saints Row is a bad series; it certainly isn't). Put simply, listen to anyone describing the activities they get up to when going off the rails in a sandbox game, chances are it will sound more like something Trevor would do. Taken out of context, there is nothing charismatic or likeable about stealing cars, running over pedestrians, shooting down innocents or blowing up cops. In real-life, these would be the actions of a deranged creep and that's who Trevor is.

Though I do like the 'father, the son and the holy ghost' bit. That's kind of clever.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

Brace yourself for the incoming storm of fanboys howling in rage they you did not fall to your knees and worship their game.

I watched a lot of GTAV as my friend played it.
I kept saying "Wow what a bunch of aholes".

I have seen more of ZP fanboys here then GTA fans. I hear always from ZP fan when he review a popular game "brace yourself for butthurt fanboys coming in here and raging, hurr durr we are so smart". I'm getting sick of it.

Absolutely yes. There's never butt hurt here. If people flip out, it's cause they just made a throw away account and don't care if they get banned in 3 posts. The same thing happened on the on the Last of Us review, all legit criticism of it was drowned out by "lol, what did you expect? Butt hurt people are butt hurt. Its his opinion which means it can't be criticized". Yahtzee's criticism isn't even good anymore. Remember his "The Wii U will win the console generation cause it can be used without a tv" article?

 

[Bastard King]

I may be coming from a completely different position than Yahtzee in that I actually think the story and characters of GTAV are good, but I feel he may be missing the point of the characters.

Once again, he forgets that Michael did not directly choose to go back into his life of crime 'for the riches', he made some characteristically poor decisions that forced him to do it. His whole arc is coming to terms with the fact that he likes being a criminal, but is ashamed of this and also alienates his family as a result. I don't even get where he's coming from about Franklin; he just described Franklin's central conflict without explaining how it was bad or inconsistent. He wants to move on from the ghetto, but he's loyal to his old friends as well. That's just it.

As for Trevor, I don't see where the 'free-spirited rogue' description is coming from either; he's a monstrous psychopath, plain and simple. As a representation of the typical sandbox player, he's arguably a more accurate depiction than the whimsical caricatures that Saints Row features (though not saying that Saints Row is a bad series; it certainly isn't). Put simply, listen to anyone describing the activities they get up to when going off the rails in a sandbox game, chances are it will sound more like something Trevor would do. Taken out of context, there is nothing charismatic or likeable about stealing cars, running over pedestrians, shooting down innocents or blowing up cops. In real-life, these would be the actions of a deranged creep and that's who Trevor is.

Though I do like the 'father, the son and the holy ghost' bit. That's kind of clever.

This is probably the best analysis I've read of GTA V's cast. Particularly Trevor.

Really, the main problem with GTA V isn't the characters or the gameplay, both of those are fantastic. What brings GTA V out of "Top Five of All Time" territory is the story and the satire. It would've been vastly improved if they cut the torture bit, made Devin Weston and Martin Madrazo the same character, focused more on Stretch and Wei Chang, and merged ending options A and B into the same mission.

Everything written by Lazlow Jones should've been cut from the game entirely. The dude's a horrible comedy writer, and his shit being involved with a two hundred million dollar game screams "amateur hour." Not that Howser and Unsworth aren't complicit too, but seeing as how Rockstar games without Lazlow always have much better writing, I'll put most of the blame on him.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

I've got to admit that I'm warming up to Trevor after watching almost a complete longplay, but I can't deny the fact that he (and most of the cast) happens to be a terrible, terrible person. I've said it before in another thread, but one of the biggest problems I have with GTA is that its defense is satire.

I don't know if that's just me, but I don't see what's satirical in piling scathing parody after scathing parody. There isn't a woman in the game that isn't a raging stereotypical feminist that would make supporters of the actual cause cringe, and there isn't a man in the game that doesn't have some deep-seated issues that would also make most people cringe. As far as I know, satire is supposed to use humour as its main delivery device - not gritty exaggeration.

Considering, whenever I hear the defense that Los Santos is some sort of Faux Los Angeles populated by narcissists and sociopaths, I just have to reply with "How does that make the game funny in any way? How does that make me want to engage in that setting?"

The fact is that it doesn't. Fake Steelport feels a lot more like a playground to me, and SRIV's brand of sociopathy works for me because it's validated in the context of the already extra-silly Saints Row universe. Los Santos, in comparison, really reflects the fact that the Houser brothers aren't American or, well, even generally North American.

Starting with GTA 4, I got the feeling that the series' overall tone was one of going "Oh, you silly Americans, with your dreams and delusions of cultural relevance. You're really all wallowing in the same filth we all are."

Which is ironic, considering GTA doesn't so much poke at America as it does Western culture in general. By this logic, why hasn't Rockstar fictionalized London by now? What about Paris or Montreal, while we're at it? Why New York and Los Angeles, if neither of them really matter as far as thematic relevance is concerned?

 

[arcticphoenix95]

I love the double standard people have with this game.

You think the plot is terrible and the characters are unsympathetic? Everyone bends over backwards to defend your right to a differing opinion.

You think that the plot is interesting and that the characterization is good because criminals don't have to be sympathetic? Butthurt fanboy.

But that's just a problem I have with the Escapist in general. Nobody bats an eyelash when people state "Halo is shit" as fact (by the way, when you state that one game "is shit" but also hold some other game sacred, maybe you should reconsider your tone), but if someone says something like "David Cage is a terrible writer" then everyone suddenly develops an urge to argue.

Not to mention the asinine attempts by commenters to bait GTA fanboys into an argument. Funny thing is, out of the 260 comments on his last video, three or four of them disagreed with yahtzee's opinion on the game (in a civil manner no less).

 

[bug_of_war]

Brace yourself for the incoming storm of fanboys howling in rage they you did not fall to your knees and worship their game.

I watched a lot of GTAV as my friend played it.
I kept saying "Wow what a bunch of aholes".

Brace yourself for the coming, "Brace yourself-GTA Fanboys angry" posts.

I don't think anyone is gonna disagree there assholes, and I don't understand why this is suddenly new for a GTA game, none of the characters were ever good people.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Jeez. This is a series about getting phone calls and running as many people over as possible in 30 seconds for cash. Why all the fuss? It was never about good characters, good stories. And the fact people are still buying it in the millions means it still isn't about that. The fast cars, the chicks, the baddassery, the drugs, everything that the adolescent kids wanted to do while living with their disapproving parents and which the game enabled for a short time between dull and dreary school days. That's what people want and that's what they got. I see no problem here.

 

[Kingjackl]

Really, the main problem with GTA V isn't the characters or the gameplay, both of those are fantastic. What brings GTA V out of "Top Five of All Time" territory is the story and the satire. It would've been vastly improved if they cut the torture bit, made Devin Weston and Martin Madrazo the same character, focused more on Stretch and Wei Chang, and merged ending options A and B into the same mission.

Everything written by Lazlow Jones should've been cut from the game entirely. The dude's a horrible comedy writer, and his shit being involved with a two hundred million dollar game screams "amateur hour." Not that Howser and Unsworth aren't complicit too, but seeing as how Rockstar games without Lazlow always have much better writing, I'll put most of the blame on him.

Oh, I agree. I like the torture sequence as an idea, but it sticks out like a sore thumb compared to the rest of it. It's probably the closest the game gets to actually being satire, while the other stuff is just a whole bunch of broad exaggerations hiding behind the defence of being satire.

I'm not going into spoilers here, but I would have cut option B entirely. While option A is sort of justifiable, option B makes no sense at all. Actually, giving us the choice was probably not necessary at all, since C is just so much better than the other two.

 

[Ryleh]

Jeez. This is a series about getting phone calls and running as many people over as possible in 30 seconds for cash. Why all the fuss? It was never about good characters, good stories. And the fact people are still buying it in the millions means it still isn't about that. The fast cars, the chicks, the baddassery, the drugs, everything that the adolescent kids wanted to do while living with their disapproving parents and which the game enabled for a short time between dull and dreary school days. That's what people want and that's what they got. I see no problem here.

It's true, and as far as I'm concerned, if kids are wagging school to play a game where the moral of the story is pretty much "drugs, sex and money don't get you anywhere" then maybe we'll have more decent game developers rather than investment bankers coming up in the next few years.

Having said that, although the game is excellent without the story, it doesn't disregard the fact that a story was attempted. I'm pretty sure they didn't set out to make a brilliant game with a mediocre story, so what went wrong? That's what Yahtzee's trying to discuss here, and I think he's pretty much on the money.