Horrible People in Video Games: Let's actually talk about it.

[AzrealMaximillion]

There was a bit of controversy surrounding the GTA V review on the Escapist.

A 3.5 out of 5. And that score was given mainly due to the fact that you play as 3 morally horrible people. Now I have to ask, why is this a negative against the game? I thought that horrible people were supposed to make you feel uncomfortable.

I seriously think the portrayal of morally corrupt protagonists in video games is improving because they actually have the player feeling like what they are doing is wrong. Which to me is a good thing. It shows that the player has some sense of morals (provided they pay attention to that in games).

This is a discussion we need to have in gaming. I'm not asking for the GTA V review to be changed or anything so base as that. I'm just thinking that maybe morally corrupt protagonists making the player uncomfortable should not be considered as a negative.

Let's look at Hotline Miami.
Play as a contract killer. Though the aesthetic of the game has a retro feel, the animations turn the game from a happy go lucky go and fucking kill people game into something a bit more real. Seeing headless enemies using their last bit of energy of life to crawl to safety in futility makes you feel like you've killed a person rather than just killing "game enemy #237". Enemies claw at their faces when you throw pots of boiling water at them. Dead bodies twitch. And you have no reason to do this other than to get paid.

There are very few games that can cause the player to feel wrong about that they are doing and yet still be called a good game and captivating enough to finish. The two games I mentioned do a better job of this than Manhunt of all games.


I just feel that if we are going to argue that games can be art, we have to be willing to be made uncomfortable by the games we play just as we can with movies and paintings. We've seen games that make gamers uncomfortable through a sad story so many times, I think its time to have games make the player question their own moral integrity more often.

What do you guys think? Can you also name any other games that do what GTA and Hotline Miami have done in terms of having you question your morality limits?

Another game that comes to mind for me is Spec Ops: The Line.

 

[TheIceQueen]

For some people it is, for others it isn't. Who are we to judge why someone does or doesn't like a game? Sure, feel free to disagree with them, after all discussion is something to always be had, but you also have to recognize that it will be a negative for some, even if, after experiencing some moral squirming, you don't. If they felt uncomfortable and they didn't like the game because of that, they shouldn't have to like it still just because moral questioning somehow proves games are art. If they didn't like it, they didn't like it, and in the case of a reviewer, they shouldn't have to say "I didn't like the game - 9.5/10"

If, to Greg Tito, it was a 7/10, then it was a 7/10 for him and there are going to be those out there who agree with him. There are already 50+ shining reviews out there of GTA V, but maybe for a select few out there, that moral conundrum just isn't their cup of tea in a game, then Greg Tito's review helps them. Mind you, I'm very much playing devil's advocate here. I didn't like Greg Tito's review either, but even still, that's his opinion. Besides, I don't know about you, but I don't know if Greg Tito likes Hotline Miami or Spec Ops: The Line. I didn't see him review any of those or give some sort of editorial on them. Nor have I seen him comment on the whole 'games as art' thing. Maybe he's just not that type of guy. I don't know.

Regardless, my main point here, is that, yes, it doesn't have to be a negative. Many people seem to be liking the idea of a morally questionable player character. Me, I like them. I think it can make for some rather interesting insight. But gaming's expensive and can be time-consuming and they should be able to have the power to make it as relaxing and entertaining as they want it to be for them.

While on the whole I agree with you, I just think that for some it'll be a negative and if that's the case, it's completely fine. More power to you if that's who you are. Like what you want to like, play what you want to play. That's my philosophy when it comes to games.

 

[Nouw]

I thoroughly enjoyed playing Hotline:Miami, especially because it made me feel uncomfortable at times. I reveled in it all, the pixelated ultra-violence and euphoric soundtrack. It gave a blunt depiction of violence, the actual violence and the consequences themselves. I liked that. I felt respected by the devs. The ending also really nails it for me.

Spoiler: Spoilers for the respective game.

"It was all just a game!"

 

[Doom972]

For some people it is, for others it isn't. Who are we to judge why someone does or doesn't like a game? Sure, feel free to disagree with them, after all discussion is something to always be had, but you also have to recognize that it will be a negative for some, even if, after experiencing some moral squirming, you don't. If they felt uncomfortable and they didn't like the game because of that, they shouldn't have to like it still just because moral questioning somehow proves games are art. If they didn't like it, they didn't like it, and in the case of a reviewer, they shouldn't have to say "I didn't like the game - 9.5/10"

If, to Greg Tito, it was a 7/10, then it was a 7/10 for him and there are going to be those out there who agree with him. There are already 50+ shining reviews out there of GTA V, but maybe for a select few out there, that moral conundrum just isn't their cup of tea in a game, then Greg Tito's review helps them. Mind you, I'm very much playing devil's advocate here. I didn't like Greg Tito's review either, but even still, that's his opinion. Besides, I don't know about you, but I don't know if Greg Tito likes Hotline Miami or Spec Ops: The Line. I didn't see him review any of those or give some sort of editorial on them. Nor have I seen him comment on the whole 'games as art' thing. Maybe he's just not that type of guy. I don't know.

Regardless, my main point here, is that, yes, it doesn't have to be a negative. Many people seem to be liking the idea of a morally questionable player character. Me, I like them. I think it can make for some rather interesting insight. But gaming's expensive and can be time-consuming and they should be able to have the power to make it as relaxing and entertaining as they want it to be for them.

While on the whole I agree with you, I just think that for some it'll be a negative and if that's the case, it's completely fine. More power to you if that's who you are. Like what you want to like, play what you want to play. That's my philosophy when it comes to games.

What matters is who this game is being made for. If someone has a problem playing a sociopath, the GTA series is definitely not for him regardless of the score. For someone interested in this type of game, it shouldn't be a flaw, and if it is, it's not a major one.

I would say that taking it into account when deciding the score is wrong (not the score itself though, as I haven't played it and I don't know how good it is). A warning for those who might be offended by it at the end of the review would have, sufficed in my opinion.

 

[Realitycrash]

The main reason I never liked ANY GTA-game was that it was too over-the-top violent, and realistic with it violence. No super-humans, or gods, or space-marines fighting aliens. No, just normal criminals killing and maiming everyday people because they are assholes.
And that strikes a bit too close to home for me. I would have down-rated such a game as well, simply because I don't like it.

 

[Daggedawg]

I thoroughly enjoyed playing Hotline:Miami, especially because it made me feel uncomfortable at times. I reveled in it all, the pixelated ultra-violence and euphoric soundtrack. It gave a blunt depiction of violence, the actual violence and the consequences themselves. I liked that. I felt respected by the devs. The ending also really nails it for me.

Spoiler: Spoilers for the respective game.

"It was all just a game!"

Someone didn't get the true ending, I see...

 

[Nouw]

I thoroughly enjoyed playing Hotline:Miami, especially because it made me feel uncomfortable at times. I reveled in it all, the pixelated ultra-violence and euphoric soundtrack. It gave a blunt depiction of violence, the actual violence and the consequences themselves. I liked that. I felt respected by the devs. The ending also really nails it for me.

Spoiler: Spoilers for the respective game.

"It was all just a game!"

Someone didn't get the true ending, I see...

Haha I'm gonna be honest here I just googled that one.

Spoiler: More spoilers

Doesn't it just further reinforce what the janitors say though? The ridiculous nature of the true-true ending is why I took it that way anyway.

 

[aozgolo]

I think we've just reached a new type of "uncanny valley", one that's no longer disturbing it's viewers with it's almost but not quite realistic human models, but with the almost but not quite level of moral consequence that can be seen in modern sandbox game's AI. With games like Saints Row we never worried about how morally reprehensible our protagonists were because the game didn't take it's world or story seriously. In contrast, while still maintaining it's own brandy of toilet humor, GTA games grew up a lot. While we suffered from the ludonarrative dissonance of GTA:IV, that dissonance also prevented us from fully embracing the game's "realism". With GTA:V you have a deeply interactive world that lets you do so much and really drives home the "you can be anyone" kind of feel we want from open world sandbox games, but then restricts you in-story to being three morally bankrupt criminals who, acting skill not withstanding, we can more readily identify with because the things they do seem more in tune with the kind of people they are.

I doubt many sane people who follow the show Breaking Bad think of Walt as a positive role model on anyone. We are fascinated with the decline so much of someone entering this low state that we will never experience ourselves.

I think what really hurt GTA:V, and what GTA:IV tried to do but failed is have that moral decline into the criminal underworld. Pretty much everyone in GTA:V starts out at rock bottom, there's no slippery slope, there's no assumption of trying to do what's right or go the high road, you're just already there.

Morality is only a fascinating study in a story when it changes.

 

[Lieju]

It depends on what the attitude of the game is towards them, and whether it wants me to think they're horrible.

For example, there is a difference in a game having misogyny and a game being misogynist; the complaint the Gamespot-reviewer had was that (in her opinion), GTAV was being the latter; instead of commenting on misogyny in the society or making fun of it she felt the game was just recycling those attitudes, and in the process excluding female gamers.


If a game is cartoonish with the violence, like Saint's Row, it's easy to accept it's fantasy. If the violence is more realistic and yet the game wants you to enjoy it without it being a commentary on anything, then it makes me uncomfortable.

And of course horrible people can be written well or written badly. If they just do horrible things for no good reasons, or because the game-designer wanted combat or cool scenes in, then it bothers me.

 

[Psychobabble]

Sorry OP, I understand your point but my personal issue with the characters and story in GTA V is they are horribly cliche and poorly written. It has nothing to do with them being too edgy, just not interesting or likeable due to being made to be dicks for the sake of being dicks, and coming across as very 2 dimensional.

If you like the way the characters a written then more power to you. But please stop trying to rationalize that there is something wrong with the people that don't as it's a matter of personal taste and opinion. One size does not fit all.

 

[suitepee7]

i've not played it, so i can't comment on GTA:V, but a lot of people seem to bring up manhunt as a comparison, and i really didn't get that vibe from it. what i took from manhunt was pretty much being forced into a situation, and the enemies were a genuine threat. they were sent out to get you, not the other way around, and if they found you in more than a 1 on 1 situation then god help you, because they were hard enough to kill by themselves. i would agree that the way you perform the killings is a show of being sociopathic, but you're being made to by the director, a guy who

Spoiler

is creating snuff movies, kidnaps you twice and kidnaps your family and has them killed.

when comparing a game like manhunt to a game like GTA:V, my impression of the situations is quite different. in one, you are forced to be an asshole, and then seek out revenge on someone being a bigger asshole, and in the other you choose to be an asshole, because reasons.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

I think the main crux of the review is that he didn't like playing bad people with lazy motivations , which Yahtzee also addressed (but he's drenched in venomous hyperbole, so we can't take him seriously, phnar, phnar, phnar).

The whole 'better story' angle was what's supposed to make GTA the big bouncing jubblies compared to Saints Row, but if it doesn't have that then what's the point?

 

[MysticSlayer]

To me, it is a matter of people taking the game too seriously without lowering themselves to FOX News levels of alarmism. The response to the torture scene was a good example. People were so caught up in criticizing the scene for being morally repugnant that no one bothered to turn it around into a moral call to help real people who are victims of torture, not even an organization whose very purpose is helping those people. Sorry, but wasting energy attacking a game for allowing you to engage in torture, especially when that game isn't condoning torture, instead of turning your repulsion around into a real world response is an indication that something is seriously screwed up with some people's priorities.

Then again, I have serious issues with elevating fictional characters to the same level as real people, no matter how much I may sympathize with those characters while immersing myself into the fictional world they live in. I can understand not liking the way those characters were written (i.e. one-dimensional, cliched, stereotypical, unbelievable characters), but simply finding them poorly written is hardly the only reason people are criticizing the game.

 

[Thr33X]

Just my two cents...

I don't see where playing as the bad guy is such an uncomfortable thing that it makes one's judgement of the overall game change. I mean, come on...it's Grand Theft Auto for Christ's sake. A game named after a felony offense, and people expect some sort of moral high ground? That's like watching Friday The 13th and being offended that Jason kills people. The lapse of judgement isn't with the person's opinion of the game, it's with their expectation of it. Maybe it's because of the level of realism that people are thrown off or off-put, I don't know...but again to compare with film, you take your typical movie where the protagonist is of questionable character...a criminal or generally bad person. One of two things are going to happen, they get theirs in the end, or they get away with it. A game like GTA doesn't need to be that black & white, because it's the players own choice how far down the depths of inner darkness they can fall into.

Me, personally...I play GTA as if it with a certain level of decency. I know I'm in control of crooks, but I act in the guise of their character. With Michael or Franklin I play a little more low-key, breaking into parked cars as opposed to car-jacking, attacking peds only when provoked, etc. It's with Trevor that I go crazy with because often at times I switch to him and he's already doing something vile, crazy or just plain stupid. I'm going to paraphrase a bit from a video commentary by the extremely informed and equally awesome Allosaurus Rex when he said that Trevor is not a character that you're supposed to become emotionally attached to. I'm going to go further and say that none of them are made to be those kind of characters, they are in place for you to act as and to observe. It's the same as Jason as I said above. Nobody who watches the Friday The 13th movies does it because they are trying to "connect" with him, even if they are aware of the tragic origins that made him into the hatchet wielding monster he is. You are simply observing him in his element or habitat if you will. Same goes with the Los Santos trio...only difference being that you actually control their actions.

 

[stroopwafel]

To me, it is a matter of people taking the game too seriously without lowering themselves to FOX News levels of alarmism. The response to the torture scene was a good example. People were so caught up in criticizing the scene for being morally repugnant that no one bothered to turn it around into a moral call to help real people who are victims of torture, not even an organization whose very purpose is helping those people. Sorry, but wasting energy attacking a game for allowing you to engage in torture, especially when that game isn't condoning torture, instead of turning your repulsion around into a real world response is an indication that something is seriously screwed up with some people's priorities.

Exactly. The torture scene in GTA5 was brilliantly done. I mean, you extract false information from a person snatched by malicious government operatives based on sloppy guess work. That whole scene is in reality a smart, interactive critique on torture and how useless it is to gather information. It's a shame that got lost on so many people.

As for playing the whole bad boy/anti-hero; I think that opens up a lot of narrative possibilities allowing for different and original storytelling. I didn't really like any of the protagonists in GTA5 but they were all fleshed out enough that I found them intriguing, so in the end that I liked them or not didn't really matter b/c I found myself immersed anyway. That is good writing. Many TV shows, movies and now videogames have shown you don't necessarily need to relate to a character as long as they are well written. It's ultimately the story that draws you in or not.

 

[lacktheknack]

Spec Ops was meant to make you feel awful.

GTA V was not, if people's general reactions are to be believed.

That would be a major difference.

I haven't played Hotline Miami, so I can't comment.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Sorry OP, I understand your point but my personal issue with the characters and story in GTA V is they are horribly cliche and poorly written. It has nothing to do with them being too edgy, just not interesting or likeable due to being made to be dicks for the sake of being dicks, and coming across as very 2 dimensional.

If you like the way the characters a written then more power to you. But please stop trying to rationalize that there is something wrong with the people that don't as it's a matter of personal taste and opinion. One size does not fit all.

I think you missed the point of what I said. Were they really written to be dicks for the sake of being dicks? Or are they a satirical look at criminals in the real world. To you they may seem cliche, but they are a reflection of criminals in modern America. Some criminals in the real world are just dicks for no reason(and I'm not counting the mentally ill when I say that). So I can't really take the point of the characters being dicks for no reason as a negative considering the fact that GTA V is satire. That's just my personal opinion.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Spec Ops was meant to make you feel awful.

GTA V was not, if people's general reactions are to be believed.

That would be a major difference.

I haven't played Hotline Miami, so I can't comment.

Would you like to elaborate on that? I find that if you question the way that people act in GTA, not just the main characters and criminals, but the random citizens as well, how can you not feel at least a little uncorfortable. The misogyny, the racism, the depictions of those with differing sexual orientations/identity, the blatant bias in the media, the crudeness of the everyday citizen, all come from real life.

GTA V makes you look at all of the negative aspects of our consumerist society in our modern age of decadence that you'd generally either not think about, or outright ignore.

Spec Ops makes you question yourself for having fun in other military video games as well as supporting inglorious war.

Both games have a different way of showing you a negative aspect of something by having you in primary control of the negative impacts done. Spec Ops just forces it a bit more and has a more direct message.

 

[lacktheknack]

Spec Ops was meant to make you feel awful.

GTA V was not, if people's general reactions are to be believed.

That would be a major difference.

I haven't played Hotline Miami, so I can't comment.

Would you like to elaborate on that? I find that if you question the way that people act in GTA, not just the main characters and criminals, but the random citizens as well, how can you not feel at least a little uncorfortable. The misogyny, the racism, the depictions of those with differing sexual orientations/identity, the blatant bias in the media, the crudeness of the everyday citizen, all come from real life.

GTA V makes you look at all of the negative aspects of our consumerist society in our modern age of decadence that you'd generally either not think about, or outright ignore.

Did it work?

Considering how people ONLY bring up these points when trying to defend the game against Greg Tito, I'm not sure it worked.

Spec Ops makes you question yourself for having fun in other military video games as well as supporting inglorious war.

Both games have a different way of showing you a negative aspect of something by having you in primary control of the negative impacts done. Spec Ops just forces it a bit more and has a more direct message.

And by extension, people seem to get it when they play Spec Ops, but from what I can see, they don't seem to get it when they play GTA.

At least Spec Ops is brazen about how much it wants you to feel bad. GTA, however, wraps the satire up in something that encourages you to be as awful as possible and not care. It's the same problem I had with the movie "God Bless America". I don't like that I'm supposed to get tons of catharsis out of being so immensely violent and... well... terrible, and then I'm supposed to take away the message that "the stuff you did was bad and you should feel bad" after I've had my jollies.

I'm OK with Saints Row when they let the player be ludicrously violent, because they don't have a two-faced message attached. GTA and "God Bless America" and their ilk just rub me the wrong way.