GTAV's Characters Are Just Bad

[sumanoskae]

Well said, Ben. I haven't finished the game yet, so I can't wholly agree or disagree but the point was well made. I'm leaning towards agreement for now; the characters aren't really doing it for me.

 

[Something Amyss]

With Michael there seems to be not even one ounce of difference; He's still an unhappy asshole with an unhappy asshole family. Trevor is still a sick fuck in his trailer, and Franklin is alone in his big villa.

So what was the point to all of this?

Michael's faily actually gets stronger through shared danger and they become closer. They're assholes, but they're assholes that can now tolerate one another. Franklin getting out of the hood only to find himself alone and with more problems could even be considered an intentional resolution. Trevor is...Well, he's Trevor, but at least he gets over Michael's betrayal to some extent.

I dunno. That last one is weak. The other two I stand by.

Anyway, Yahtzee had me until he called Niko Bellic a strong character. He's a strong character in the same sense that Keannu Reeves is a strong actor.

 

[Piecewise]

Trevor is probably one of the more interesting characters I've seen in a while. His strange but consistent pathology, his nigh doglike lack of impulse control, bitter loyalty, and desperate desire to be close to people mixed with an established habit of pushing them away and hurting them.

It's interesting to see a character that merges such depraved violence and such fragility, and whats more to see that the character himself realizes this contradiction. In the end, Trevor is paradoxically a better person then mike. Mike is all too happy to put his own needs and desires above everyone else, all to willing to try and betray Trevor. Trevor, on the other hand, despite being betrayed and almost killed, finds himself unable to hurt Michael.

I feel like Yahtzee didn't read very deep into the subtext of the characters or their interactions. Because Trever is far from a simple violent psychopath. He's a violent psychopath with layers. Violent, blood soaked layers.

 

[Callate]

I'll note right now that I haven't gotten to play GTA V, though I hope to. (Get to work on the PC version, Rockstar...) But what I'm hearing from Yahtzee and from others is not so much that the characters are reprehensible per se, though they certainly may be that.

Protagonists don't have to be pillars of goodness and kindness to be likable; beyond that, characters don't even have to be likable to be relatable. Plenty of movie characters and even some of GTA and its spinoffs have featured characters who were fairly awful human beings, yet it was still possible to empathize with the circumstances that had brought them there or at least not feel bad that the lesser evil was picking off the greater evils.

What I'm hearing is that something about the GTA V protagonists is making some people out-and-out refuse to identify with them in a way that wasn't inspired by the previous gun-toting, serial-murdering, grandmother-running-over characters. To say, in a sense, "I'm not going to pretend to be okay with this; I'm uncomfortable even making these people my avatar, because it feels as though it reflects poorly on me."

Not everyone may feel that way; I'm not suggesting there's some sort of moral imperative that they do. But it is an interesting response, and I'm not prepared off the cuff to say it's an illegitimate one.

 

[Sanunes]

I blame more of that "realism" that's stinking up the place. Rock Star tried making GTA, a series meant to be a cartoonish power-fantasy of crime, more "gritty and realistic", and forgetting that crime in the real world is far from enjoyable. It's gruesome and horrific. It's like they can't decide if they want to make us feel bad about the stuff they make us do in their game, or indulge in our inner guilt-free maniac.

I think you sum up my problems with GTA, for I had problems with GTA IV as well and from what I have seen GTA V is amplifying the problems I had with four. I don't think there is a problem with the writing or the game mechanics, but more of game direction for it feels like they are trying to go in multiple different directions with the game and at times they are in direct conflict with one another.

 

[Sarge034]

I've heard a lot of other people make the case that Trevor is intended to be a representation of the behaviour an average player shows when set loose in a sandbox game. A depiction that makes sense when he's being portrayed more as a sort of amoral free-spirited rogue, but not in the moments when he is merely nasty. A player, released in the sandbox and free of consequences, is reckless and whimsical, not cruel. They might kill someone if they're in the way or because they fly off in a hilarious manner, but prolonged and calculated torture isn't the same. It's just not as funny.

This is where I had to stop. You think players aren't cruel? Corpse camping in WOW is most defiantly calculated, prolonged, and cruel (60s in a lvl 20 area most of the time). Griefing in GTA online and DayZ, while perhaps not as calculated, is most defiantly prolonged and cruel. You have even stated that you don't play online because most people act like douche bags.

I mean just look at the number of people boasting about corpse camping and the like on this very website.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.831059-The-peope-in-GTA-Online-are-horrible?page=2#20280662

 

[Casual Shinji]

With Michael there seems to be not even one ounce of difference; He's still an unhappy asshole with an unhappy asshole family. Trevor is still a sick fuck in his trailer, and Franklin is alone in his big villa.

So what was the point to all of this?

Michael's faily actually gets stronger through shared danger and they become closer. They're assholes, but they're assholes that can now tolerate one another. Franklin getting out of the hood only to find himself alone and with more problems could even be considered an intentional resolution. Trevor is...Well, he's Trevor, but at least he gets over Michael's betrayal to some extent.

I dunno. That last one is weak. The other two I stand by.

Anyway, Yahtzee had me until he called Niko Bellic a strong character. He's a strong character in the same sense that Keannu Reeves is a strong actor.

Well, Niko Bellic had at least somewhat of a conclusion to his story. Not that that was a satisfying ending, but by the end of GTA5 it felt like nothing substantial had occured at all except for their bank account. With Michael's family it was literally like 'Okay, we're nearing the end of the game so we have to get along now, eventhough there's no grounds for it at all'. And in this nearly 6 year long GTA-free period, there have been plenty of other open-world games with a way more satisfying overarching experience.

In the meantime Rockstar seems content on just throwing a tanker full of cynical observations your way and calling it a day. But then the only Rockstar game I ever really liked was Bully.

 

[Vale]

People forget that GTA is not always one way or the other. It's not "just" satire. It constantly fluctuates between satire and seriousness, not very expertly, but quite deliberately.
Case in point.
Torture scene? Not satire. It was very genuinely meant to disgust the player, because this is what happens in real life. "Enhanced interrogation" is something that gets swept under the rug because it only really happens to brown people and because nobody gives a shit. The guys at Rockstar are genuinely disgusted with this and extremely angry at the people who allow such things to happen (aka their target audience of American 15-35 year olds who do not protest this atrocity) and they want to disgust them as much as possible.
Also, Rockstar loves controversy.
Drugs giving superpowers.
Hot Coffee.
Corrupt Politician Dong.
Now the torture scene.
They genuinely enjoy the shit-flinging because they're juvenile assholes at heart.
But they most definitely care. That should probably be kept in mind.

 

[CheckD3]

Surprisingly, for the first ever GTA I've played, I've grown fond of GTAV. I find the characters to not always be likeable, and Trevor is psychotic, and an asshole, but he's got a certain way of being a total asshole, while still being a somewhat likable person. He furthers himself and friends first, then worries about everyone else after they're covered.

I personally find the 3 of them to give a solid balance, but that's just me. Maybe I'm overlooking flaws, but I don't really care, I'm having fun with them and that's really what matters to me.

 

[immortalfrieza]

And if that was the intention, it bloody well worked for me, but I don't think it was, not fully. I've heard a lot of other people make the case that Trevor is intended to be a representation of the behaviour an average player shows when set loose in a sandbox game. A depiction that makes sense when he's being portrayed more as a sort of amoral free-spirited rogue, but not in the moments when he is merely nasty. A player, released in the sandbox and free of consequences, is reckless and whimsical, not cruel. They might kill someone if they're in the way or because they fly off in a hilarious manner, but prolonged and calculated torture isn't the same. It's just not as funny. The protagonist of Saint's Row IV better represents a sandbox player to my mind, because they have charisma; the satire works because they are an idealized self to match the idealized morals of the sandbox, whereas Trevor is an ugly monster.

Yahtzee, apparently you know nothing about how the average gamer acts in all video games, not just GTA. If they're able to, most gamers will be completely evil psychotic bastards that would make the devil himself look good in every way that the game allows them to at some point or another, even if it's solely out of boredom. Outright coldblooded torture is a really... iffy subject so it doesn't appear that often in video games, but when it does the average player will do it for various reasons, plenty of them having the reason just being "it was fun."

I mean, I can't count the number of comments in a Fallout 3 Blow up Megaton video on Youtube or on this very forum who've said they did it, plenty who say they wouldn't granted, but lots of them anyway, and the same can be said for similarly evil acts in video games. The reasons for these acts vary, from "for the money/karma points" to "for the sheer fun of it" to "I was bored", but in the end it still shows that what Trevor does is pretty tame compared to the insane things the average player will do if the game allows it. GTA itself is built around feeding that psychotic nature.

 

[Razorback0z]

Fascinating.... because until I came to watch the review last week and now to read this, I actually don't think I could have imagined that so many people wouldn't like the characters and for so many reasons.

I enjoyed pretty much all the content. I can see some of the arguments, but not others. I regarded Trevor as pretty well written actually. I enjoyed both Michael and Franklin as playable characters and would not personally have even thought of them in these contexts if I hadn't read all this stuff.

I don't regard myself as a "fan boy" of GTAV because I have my issues with it, for example it feels like its been designed for content packs sales. The environment is pretty huge, but the parts used to run the storyline all seem to happen in the same locations that constitute about 30% of the map, maybe less. Similarly it seems like there were a lot more things they could have done (like those banks you come across with safes you cant blow) that make it feel unfinished. So either they rushed it out or just couldn't be assed implementing some of the ideas they clearly had in mind.

I found Ben's review the least amusing review hes done in my opinion. It felt genuinely bitter for some reason and I guess only he knows why that is. If you watch the GTA4 review its a LOT funnier and is probably far more critical of the game. I think both Ben and RS have room for improvement at this stage.

 

[Something Amyss]

Well, Niko Bellic had at least somewhat of a conclusion to his story. Not that that was a satisfying ending, but by the end of GTA5 it felt like nothing substantial had occured at all except for their bank account.

That doesn't make for a strong character. In fact, it seems that would argue against Yahtzee's point, making his character almost superfluous. Thankfully, it was, as he had the character of a cardboard standup of Keannu Reeves. Which is to say about the same as Reeves himself.

I can't speak to the conclusion. GTA IV failed to engage me to the level I never finished it. It was pretty awful.

With Michael's family it was literally like 'Okay, we're nearing the end of the game so we have to get along now, eventhough there's no grounds for it at all'. And in this nearly 6 year long GTA-free period, there have been plenty of other open-world games with a way more satisfying overarching experience.

Well, they did have grounds for it. People were trying to kill them.

And I understand the satisfaction issue, on some level. Half the time I wish this was Saints Row. One of the good Saints Rows. Still, the story engaged me more than GTA IV, so in itself it became the most satisfying GTA experience I've had in over a decade.

I personally would have preferred them to have spent some time coming up with some better controls or maybe even better humour, but....

In the meantime Rockstar seems content on just throwing a tanker full of cynical observations your way and calling it a day. But then the only Rockstar game I ever really liked was Bully.

Here's the thing, though, and don't take this as a defense of the practice so much as just pointing out that it exists:

People seem to like the shallow "commentary" on society. It starts with the characters. Tito's review which griped about the totally unlikable characters was met with a lot of "well DUH! That's the point!" when it really doesn't go without saying. Most player characters have some level of relatability, even if they're monsters and psychopaths. People actually defend Gregory House, but the only defense people seem to be able to muster for the characters here is "they're supposed to be shit!" And that's where we get into the overall theme. GTA V seems content to say "look how shit everything is" and not bother with any commentary beyond that point. But people eat it up, so why do anything more?

I mean, honestly. If you can make a very literal and blatant thesis statement about hipsters, blacks, or celebrities and people will respond with "lol!" why would you bother honing your art? I call this the "South Park" effect.

 

[Stabby Joe]

I know this article is about the characters but I feel the plot heavily influences (although less than IV) the gameplay more than usual.

While I like GTA V, I no longer consider it a "sandbox". V is an open world game, no doubt yet I feel punished for going off the rails; the huge police presence, easy deaths, more difficult vehicle control, constant interruptions etc. A sandbox game let's me cut loose more than that, even encouraging it at times. V wants me to follow the plot more than anything else it seems at times.

Just Cause 2 had roughly a handful of "real" missions, Prototype and inFamous wants you to explore to build up your arsenal/powers, Red Faction: Guerrilla encourages " map cleaning up" and Saints Row IV is just plain oddball. Since all of those are in relatively modern/technologically advanced worlds, other less sandbox, more open world games like Red Dead Redemption and to a degree Skrim were different compared to cars and highrises.

HOWEVER I need to get around to GTA Online, that seems fresh and more sandbox.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

I dont understand how no one seems to notice the intended irony of players getting all 'uncomfortable' over a torture scene in a game with apparently 'awfully' written characters anyway, when they are much more comfortable mowing down endless pretend ppl in all the other games and the gta's.
I think perhaps that was an intended message towards the fallacy of gamer's ethics. The more criticism it recieves, the more the point is strengthened. Quite beautiful in a twisted sort of way.

Anyhow, GTA makes me laugh, and thats a difficult thing to do due to my british miserable cynicism. I have been unfortunate enough to grow up around a lot of untrustworthy selfish people, not all, but a lot. So no character other than trevor surprised me. The acting and character movements were superb though, much better than your average movie. I really found trevors anger highly infectious. but i have deep emotional issues so...
Speaking of films, there is a huge difference between cheap shock tactics such as the saw and human catterpiller series, to the scenes designed to induce various uncomfortable emotions to convey an overall message such as tetsuo.
So ladies, please calm down, are there not important things to moan about?

 

[Bastard King]

But the problem is that Mr.K repeatedly, and explicitly states that he would have told you anyway. The torture, at the end of the day is nothing but a grisly and unecessary action. It is intentionally trying to illicit a response of: 'What the hell was the point of that? What did I gain that I couldn't have gotten just by talking to him? Mr.K is not even a criminal, so why is this even happening?!' If that was your response, I feel it succeded. Now, one could very much make the argument that it's intended more for the average, oblivious player of GTA who wouldn't pay attention to this subject UNLESS it's thrown in their faces, and that might be true, but that doesn't make it any more insightful IMO.

Look, I can see from your previous posts on this that you do, in fact, enjoy GTA V, so I think we got off on the wrong foot, and I'm going to try and extend an olive branch and apologize for being rude before. I'm sorry.

I really did enjoy GTA V. If I were forced to grade games on a five star scale, here's how I'd place GTA V.

***** - Red Dead Redemption, GOTY Edition
****3/4 - FF Tactics
****1/2 - GTA V
**** - FF VII
*** - FF XII
** - Halo 3
* - Gears of War III
DUD - FF XIII
-* - Duke Nukem Forever

That said, you're still wrong about the torture scene. There's a huge difference between what characters in a medium say, and what the plot shows you. Trevor can talk all he wants about torture not being a useful form of information gathering. The game still gave you no choice but to torture the dude, had it totally work in your favor, and never presented any character in the plot with any consequences for torturing the dude. If Dan Houser wanted to have the plot play out like that, it's just stupid for him to claim to be anti torture.

It's like in the Star Wars prequels when Obi-Wan and Anikin claim to be friends even though they're constantly bickering and never once shown getting along. Which'd be fine if George Lucas didn't actually want them to like each other and used it as a means of deconstruction, like Tony Soprano telling his psychiatrist how much he loves his mother even though he can't come up with a single reason why when pressed, but that wasn't the case.

Same with GTA V. The torture didn't backfire on any of the characters in any way, and Mr. K's never seen or heard from again and doesn't affect the rest of the plot at all. By the actions of the plot and characters, which is what actually matters unlike one off lines of dialogue, torture totally works and brings you no negative consequences at all. Which would be fine if it's like 24 or Zero Dark Thirty where the message is that torture works, but it wasn't.

I could go on about the other faults of the game, but the sheer amount of defense I see for the torture scene in the face of it's complete failure as a function of the story really gets me. Can't we all just admit GTA V was a great game even though parts of it sucked?

 

[EvilRoy]

I dont understand how no one seems to notice the intended irony of players getting all 'uncomfortable' over a torture scene in a game with apparently 'awfully' written characters anyway, when they are much more comfortable mowing down endless pretend ppl in all the other games and the gta's.
I think perhaps that was an intended message towards the fallacy of gamer's ethics. The more criticism it recieves, the more the point is strengthened. Quite beautiful in a twisted sort of way.

That's not irony, that's just normal human behavior. Characters don't need to be well written to illicit uncomfortable reactions, they just need to do something disgusting or morally reprehensible. You can easily find hundreds of videos on youtube that make people uncomfortable that feature characters no better developed than "some guy who brags about taking advantage of women" or "some person that blew off part of his hand with a firecracker" or "some chef guts a fish".

Just because people don't enjoy aspects of reality being magnified to excess though a person or characters action, doesn't mean they would be made uncomfortable by or be otherwise opposed to trying to chat up women at a bar, using fireworks on a holiday, or cutting up their dinner.

 

[toastdieb]

*spoilers ahead*

I keep seeing everyone call the characters in GTA 5 "inconsistent." I saw a lot of myself in all three characters, so maybe I picked up on the subtleties a little more? Or maybe I'm a terrible person and I'm seeing subtleties that aren't there to justify myself. Anyway, starting with Michael:

Michael is a relentless sociopath who wants a TV family and to be lauded as a good person doing good things, no matter what kind of awfulness or what kind of backstabbery he does. Even as far ahead as the last mission, I read his "friendliness" with Trevor as deceit - there is a conversation you have with Dave fairly early on in the game that suggests that Trevor was meant to be killed in the intro. He does not, at any point during the intro or the main story, view Trevor as friend, but always as a powerful enemy, or at least an unpredictable powderkeg. The veneer of friendship is meant to take advantage of Trevor's insecurities. Michael is acutely aware that it would take quite a lot for Trevor to kill the closest thing to an actual, living friend he has(which is backed up by Trevor's enthusiasm to break Brad out of prison, even though after finding out Brad is actually dead, he admits he never liked Brad anyway).

I also have thoughts on the other two but I don't want to waste my effort by turning this into a tl;dr, so I'll stop here for now.

 

[Saidan]

Mister Croshaw, I couldn't agree more. GTA V is probably the best one in the series, yet it has the weakest story of all. I hope the next title is Trevor centric, Niko's grand return, or the reincarnation of John Marston.

 

[Battenberg]

I dont understand how no one seems to notice the intended irony of players getting all 'uncomfortable' over a torture scene in a game with apparently 'awfully' written characters anyway, when they are much more comfortable mowing down endless pretend ppl in all the other games and the gta's.
I think perhaps that was an intended message towards the fallacy of gamer's ethics. The more criticism it recieves, the more the point is strengthened. Quite beautiful in a twisted sort of way.

That would be a valid point if there was some kind of comeuppance or consequences for the violent actions of the game. Spec Ops did this excellently presenting realistic violence but with a sort of commentary on the negative consequences of this violence in the real world and also, by having the player play the character they did, a commentary on video game violence. I must admit I don't know how GTA V ends however I haven't heard anything about characters changing over the course of the story (specifically the opposite in this article from Yahtzee), the reprehensible protagonists getting any comeuppance, or there being any real kind of serious reaction to their violence. Perhaps I am wrong about the end consequences in GTA V however it seems to me that a game where the result of performing violent acts and murdering strangers is to become rich and powerful that game certainly cannot claim to have an intended message about the evils of such actions, even if small portions of the game parody violence in video games.

 

[Bastard King]

At this point, I don't think either of us are objectively wrong, we just see it differently. In my mind, it's not neccesarily that it doesn't work, it's that it's completely pointless.

I really can't emphasize what I'm trying to say anymore without just repeating myself. Yes, you got info, but what would you have gained if you hadn't tortured him? Mr.K constantly tells you he would tell you anything even if you didn't torture him, but no, because he's of Middle Eastern descent, 'enhanced interrogation' is the only possible option. Why? Because fuck you, that's why! Finally, keep in mind that the two missions you had to do in order to get to 'By the Book' has you gunning down government agents who are merely doing their job. In 'Dead Man Walking,' Michael is the one who breaks into a highly classified agency and blasts his way out, there's no doubt you're the bad guy there.

You could say the exact same thing about Anikin and Obi-Wan's "friendship" in the Star Wars prequels. Notice how every single one of your defenses of the scene revolves along one of lines of dialogue from Mr. K, rather than any citation of what happens in the plot or develops from the characters? That's because the plot and the characters show that your point doesn't exist.

What is the difference between GTA's "anti-torture message" and Anikin and Obi-Wan's "friendship" in the Star Wars prequels? Until you can cite plot, emotion, and character development to prove your point, you don't have a point.

Again, it's not like I'm not a GTA fan, but there's nothing wrong with recognizing faults even in creative works you otherwise think are good. FF VII had horrible combat and looked like shit even in 1997. RDR pre-GOTY edition was way too easy even with Auto-Aim turned off. FF Tactics had no business having random battles when even short combat sessions could take forever.

I still like all those games, and I still like GTA V, but I'm trying to keep perspective with them.