GTAV's Characters Are Just Bad

[Ashcrexl]

Does anyone actually say that GTA isn't about the story? I've played every GTA game since Vice City mostly for their very entertaining stories. If it weren't for the story, I may have given up halfway through V's 40 hour campaign. The hilarious dialogue, ridiculous situations, burgeoning and disintegrating relationships, completely straight-faced evil, and Trevor's outbursts are much more engaging than the constant driving really fast and shooting guys that are pretty far away, which gets old much quicker.

Also, the world building is great.

 

[Jynthor]

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 see more people complaining about fanboys than actual fanboys.
And how dare you disagree with an article? This person knows a lot of words, obviously he is right!

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

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.

The difference being that unnerving or just outright detestable characters in other stories (let's use Hannibal Lecter as an example), work because they have something that fascinates us about them beyond them just being a giant asshole. In Hannibal's case, the savagery of his crimes juxtaposed with his well-spoken manner and code of etiquette is at once creepy and engrossing; so we watch, despite him being utterly unsymapthetic, to see where this interesting contradiction will take us next.

The problem with GTA5's three protagonists is not that they're evil. It's that they're evil AND one-note, making them boring as well as unsympathetic. As Yahtzee points out, each of their personalities can be summed up in a sentence. Michael is a whiner who chases wealth although it's already established that wealth doesn't make him happy; Franklin is everyone's *****, despite his supposed reluctance, and Trevor is nothing more than a ball of disjointed meta-psychosis. That is all that we get at the start of the game, and at no point do they really go through much of an arc to change that status quo.

 

[The Random One]

I was playing GTAIV for the story. I must have been, because I played through to the end, and I'm sure as hell I wasn't playing that for the gameplay.

 

[TheUnbeholden]

These are GTA protagonists we're talking about here, right? Most of the time I agree with you, but in this case I cannot. Did anyone go into this game expecting these three to be holy beacons of morality? I sure didn't. But that doesn't mean that their "motivation" isn't there. All three characters have very defined arcs they go through.

Michael is a retired thief who was pulled back into the game by a younger man looking to make some money. When he gets back in, he remembers how much he missed doing jobs and making loads of cash. He is also haunted by what he did 9 years before the game, especially when he realizes Trevor lives close to Los Santos and eventually finds out what he and the FIB did. Michael is ready to move on with his live, but Trevor wants to keep the good old days going. He isn't ready to move into the present, only to embrace the past for the rest of his life. And Franklin wants to break into the business but needs Michael's help to find work. All of them have a reason to be there, and it's just as thrilling to watch as Niko Bellic's story.

Exactly they do have a motivation, sure there is a conflict as to how they manage to stay together, perhaps they do so out of sheer necessity. They need one another because making it alone is unlikely. I don't see that as a inconsistency of motivation.

While I understand Yathzee's inability to sympathise with the act of torture, but I think that was exactly the point. It has to be the player who does it. Can't think of anyone better suited than Trevor. It's good to take us out of the comfort zone.

 

[Flunk]

Honestly, I hate all of the player characters in GTA V. I still really enjoyed the game because the gameplay is fantastic and the production values are great. It's interesting to see what the Xbox 360 (or PS3) can do if they're pushed as far as they can go.

The player characters are boring, stereotypes. Not only that they do suffer from a distinct lack of consistency, especially Trevor. The only player character story-lines I enjoyed were the ones where they were getting screwed. Such as the missions where Micheal's horrible children would screw him over (generally because of his crappy parenting). I found that torture scene very difficult to play, I tried very hard to get around it some other way BUT THEY LITERALLY MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE. Because of that I really didn't feel like I had any responsibility for the torture and that did make me feel a bit better but they should have had another option.

GTA V is still one of my favorite games this year, but I doubt I'll be playing it for years. Replayability is a big issue these days, I think the only recent game I seem to gravitate back to is Sonic Generations and even that I'm fairly convinced is at least half nostalgia for previous Sonic games.

 

[taciturnCandid]

The real problem with GTA 5 was weak motivation. The whole motivation was to do this stuff for money, but they didn't really give a reason why they want the money. The property in the game could be bought, but all they brought were a few boring missions and just more money.

I guess you could invest in cars, but with the glitch that eats cars there wasn't a point. Not only that, but if you wrecked it or left it because of a mission you just wasted the money. Gameplay wise the difference between a lot of money and no money was the ability to have a fancy car for a few minutes before you wreck it. The clothes were pretty cheap and you could buy what you wanted with not much problem.

In fact, I had less fun once I had more money because I became afraid of dying because that means I would lose the only reward I got from story missions.

There are a few fixes for this. Give us a few properties that do more than generate money. Maybe something that opens up a new activity or makes a measurable change in the characters.

The only character that really sees any progress in their affluence is Franklin when you get to move to a bigger house. You can't really do much to make you feel like you are living the luxurious life. The game doesn't make you feel rich. If you were to remove the money counter and start up the game you would have no idea if you had it or not.

Other things would be to add the same system as multiplayer where you can insure your car. This means you can feel like your investments into your car matter and that your purchases matter. What does it matter if you spend 200k on a car if you just crash it and have to jack another. Or even worse in the millions and just lose it.

I'd like some permanency that comes with the money. I want the money to really matter and not just for temporary bonuses.

Until that changes I just don't feel that motivated by the story because I feel like the influence is something that really isn't the useful. As I progressed in Vice city or GTA IV I saw changes in the life of the character. You moved up and went somewhere. Here nothing really changes permanently.

 

[Caiphus]

I think this whole problem hinges around whether the reader wants it to be a problem.

Or, to put it a less awkward way:

If you like playing characters that have relatable motivations, then there is a good chance that you will have problems with some of the writing in GTA. The level of discomfort will be correlated to the amount of inflexibility you have on this issue. If you really don't like playing as a heartless bastard, then yeah, you will have problems.

And that's not necessarily a bad thing. I've seen people who didn't want to buy Payday 2 because they didn't want to play as a bank robber. Nothing really wrong with that. I'm not those people, but I understand where they're coming from. They don't find the idea of committing imaginary crimes fun. I'd be slightly curious as to whether they knew this ahead of time and, if so, why they bought GTA V. But then again they're supporting video game developers and trying something new, so who gives a damn?

If you don't mind playing as a criminal, and a lot of the people buying GTA won't - that's why they're buying it - (and this is where the 'what did you expect?' argument comes from) then the complaints may seem ludicrous. But they're not, really, they're just coming from people with different mindsets.

And that's where the gap comes from. Personal taste. I mean, I don't think GTA V's story is *objectively* worse than GTA IV, whatever that would mean. I actually had more fun in V. At least the characters' actions when the player controls them are better explained in V. It's been talked to death but Niko didn't make sense a lot of the time because he'd be whining about war crimes while driving full tilt down a sidewalk.

So yeah, this whole argument comes from two groups of people not being able to understand the complaints of the other. Which is how a lot of arguments get started, but there you go.

 

[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.