Jimquisition: To Play The Villain

[shogunblade]

Jim's defense of playing the bad guy sort of reminds me of how an audience member (I'll just say me) felt while watching The Devil's Rejects, a movie that is evil and disgusting but is a "good" movie purely by virtue of the fact the movie doesn't detract from the Family's evil: They are vile human beings, but doesn't make them Robin Hood types or any other then morally reprehensible monsters.

I don't play many games anymore, but I have a friend who is planning on buying GTA5 soon, I may just play his game and experience the evil for myself. I have no problem playing Manhunt, playing GTA5 can't be much worse, can it?

Great video, Jim. May I say those descriptions were suitably... nauseating, but I'd rather have you read them then anybody else (well, maybe Brian Blessed or Patrick Stewart).

 

[geizr]

Spoiler: Some stuff and things. You don't need to see it! You wrote it.

GTA is not a series that has ever, and likely will never, appeal to me simply because I can't get past the idea of playing such disreputable characters. I will admit this may seem odd because when I play the board games Descent: Journeys in the Dark (first edition), Mansions of Madness, and Super Dungeon Explore, I am almost always (like 95% of the time) playing the role of the evil overlord, and in all of those games, the rules of the game make explicitly clear that my role is to absolutely murder the heroes. For anyone who plays these games with me in which I'm playing the evil overlord, I make it very clear, especially to new players, that this is the nature of the game and how I shall proceed about it, and I am very, very vicious in my role (I seriously do everything to absolutely _DESTROY_ the hero players). But, we all still have fun.

Now, having said all that, while GTA is not my particular cup-of-tea, I do have to wonder about giving the game a 3/10 review score. If the only complaint Greg Tito had (by the way, I have not read his review; I'm just throwing questions out there for now) that justifies the 3/10 is that he did not like the characters being so despicable, then I would have to say that that feels like an unfair score to me. However, if there are significant demerits regarding the games design and construction, for example, poor controls, poorly written story, poor graphics, excessive bugs, poor gameplay, poor game mechanics, exceptionally bad sound, etc., then there is more reason to believe the 3/10 score, and the disreputable characters are simply the psychological icing on the cake that pushed his opinion further to the extreme to a 3/10 rather than something more like 5/10 or 6/10. Perhaps 4/10 would be a more appropriate score in the later case in an effort to give more proper meaning to the 1 -10 scale of game rating, with scores like 4/10, 5/10, and 6/10 having the meanings of slightly below average, average, and slightly above average, respectively, in quality.

I don't know the exact answer. I need to actually read his review; though, that my not clarify my own opinion much more since GTA is not the kind of game I find preferential to play.

It was 3.5 out of 5. Not Ten. Also, besides the characters (and some of the writing/themes of the game), Greg actually seemed to like GTA 5.

He just said that playing characters who to him seemed like just terrible people, in the end wore him down.

The difference between GTA 5 and other games where you play terrible people, like Spec OPS The Line, is hundreds of hours of being that evil person you don't like.

Some people seem to be forgetting what Jim first said in the video. If you don't like playing the game because you don't like the characters, that is a fair complaint.

Think about it. In the game if you do well at playing you're rewarded. And with story games, one of those rewards is seeing how well the characters do after you help them out. However, if you don't like the characters, then you are then made to help out people you don't like. Thus people you may even hate benefit from your efforts.
If that's how you feel about the game, then it's hard for it to be fun. Not many enjoy helping out people they don't like.
"Congratulations! That person you hate now has even more money and time to spend on being a prick!"

It's not about being the good guys or the bad guys, it's about if you can personally like the characters.
That comes down to the quality of writing, and personal taste.

For example, if you just list off the things The Joker has done without context, then most will end up thinking he is one of the most vile people on earth. People love the Joker, even though he is kind of just plain evil, because of the stories he is in, and the dialogue he is given.

Spoiler: Plus, a stylish suit look doesn't hurt.

I had heard in Jim's video that the game was given a 3/10. It is possible that I misheard or misconstrued this fact, but that is the perception I was going by in my post. I presented my opinion on why or why not such a score may be justified given two particular hypothetical situations, and I explicitly mentioned (or tried to make somewhat clear) that these points were hypothetical. In my opinion, simply not liking the particular type of character being played is not sufficient to warrant such a low score (though it is definitely sufficient to warrant not wanting to play the game); however, if there were other significant details germane to the quality of design and construction of the game in which the game faired significantly poorly in those regards, then the score may be more justified.

Now, taking what you're saying at face-value, that the score is actually 3.5/5, then this starts sounding a little like the "Hate out of 10" problem that Jim has talked on in a previous video. Couple this also with the score inflation that has been assigned to the perceived meaning of review scores, instead of 5/10 being of average quality, 8/10 is taken as being of average quality.

This probably also points out how a singular review score is not sufficient due to the subjectiveness of the review. A reviewer that prefers a particular type, aesthetic, genre, or style of game is likely to give a significantly higher score to a game than one that is ambivalent or disliking of the game's type, aesthetic, genre, or style. In my opinion, it would be nice to have review scores done in triplets, with one score by a reviewer that has preference for the game, one score by a reviewer that is ambivalent preference for the game, and one score by a review that has adverse preference for the game. These scores would, of course, need to be clearly marked as such. The unfortunately problem with such a system is that it is extremely time and personnel intensive and likely impractical to implement by any singular reviewing publication. However, across the aggregate of reviewing publications (i.e., using the power of the Internet), this may be more realizable. If there is the cross-publication standard for reviewers to clearly notate their preference for the game, then it becomes possible for game buyers to look across reviews and see the balance of scores between the different levels of preference and make a between judgement of the quality of the game. (There probably also needs to be a cross-publication standard for review scores and how they are assigned, but I think most people are smart enough to do the conversion mentally.) The assumption here is that a game of nearly "objectively" (I use that word with a continent made entirely of salt attached) high quality should garner a reasonably high score (7-8/10 or better) from even those of ambivalent or adverse preference toward the game, given those with preference for the game a greater sense of comfort that the game will be one they intensely enjoy. Essentially, it would be nice to have some idea how the reviewer's subjective personal preferences slant his/her particular review score and have that clearly notated.

We all know that one really needs to read the review, not just look at the score, but the score does make a nice quick filter, if the gamer already has sufficient knowledge to determine if the game is within his preference. However, for those borderline cases, for example 6-8/10, filtering by review score becomes error prone, and the gamer is forced to spend effort researching reviews carefully to determine the worth of purchasing a game. While this is doable, it can become exhaustive after a sufficient number of games. At such a point, the gamer will likely just ignore any reviews and just seek a means of pre-testing the game (rentals or borrowing from a friend, relative, etc.) to determine directly if the game is worth purchasing. It becomes the point that only in the extreme cases that the review score allows quick decision on purchase. Even then, due to various corruptions of the review process that may occur, extreme high scores may be held as suspect.

Gah! Sorry for the wall-o-text response. Long story short, I wasn't really trying to state definitely one way or the other on the particulars of Greg's score, only that I could see justification in one situation but not so much in the other, without making any declaration on the exact situation that occurred, since, as I explicitly admitted, I hadn't actually taken the time to read Greg's review.

 

[Saidan]

Nice topic, we need more playable villains. And Kudos for whoever had the required level of madness to send that reading item to Jim.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Thank you Jim X( And I'm fresh out of brain bleach too.
You're right though, villains tend to be better developed and more fleshed out than the heroes, but I'm not very good at playing as one.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Having finished the video, I now understand the age check.

Thank you for that, Jim.
[sub/]redrusker's work is the best[/sub]

OT:
I agree for the most part. Playing a villain is far more interesting.

Where I disagree is playing someone I hope doesn't succeed. That just makes me want to turn off the console to thwart the bastard.

 

[Chatboy 91]

On the whole 'villains are the most compelling characters' bit, I must bring up Nox from Wakfu (if you haven't watched Wakfu, do eeeet). He's an unrepentant villain, wiping entire civilizations off the map, but when you learn his backstory and motivations (revealed over the season), you...understand why he's doing what he's doing.

I completely agree with you on that one. The first season of Wakfu was amazing primarily for having one of the best villains of all time, Noximilien!

 

[HalfTangible]

Don't worry Jim, when I publish my book about magic space raccoons fighting fox-people in giant robots, I promise not to throw in a baculum if I send you a copy. (If you know what that means, I'm sorry). I find it interesting that you had to deal with a character that looked just like you being an outright monster.

Also, I wish I'd played GTA at any point so I could join in the conversation.

 

[themilo504]

Personally I don?t mind playing as a villain but if I get the chance I rather play as a good guy, and even if I don?t get a choice I still try to play a good guy as much as I can when im in control.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Spoiler: Some stuff and things. You don't need to see it! You wrote it.

GTA is not a series that has ever, and likely will never, appeal to me simply because I can't get past the idea of playing such disreputable characters. I will admit this may seem odd because when I play the board games Descent: Journeys in the Dark (first edition), Mansions of Madness, and Super Dungeon Explore, I am almost always (like 95% of the time) playing the role of the evil overlord, and in all of those games, the rules of the game make explicitly clear that my role is to absolutely murder the heroes. For anyone who plays these games with me in which I'm playing the evil overlord, I make it very clear, especially to new players, that this is the nature of the game and how I shall proceed about it, and I am very, very vicious in my role (I seriously do everything to absolutely _DESTROY_ the hero players). But, we all still have fun.

Now, having said all that, while GTA is not my particular cup-of-tea, I do have to wonder about giving the game a 3/10 review score. If the only complaint Greg Tito had (by the way, I have not read his review; I'm just throwing questions out there for now) that justifies the 3/10 is that he did not like the characters being so despicable, then I would have to say that that feels like an unfair score to me. However, if there are significant demerits regarding the games design and construction, for example, poor controls, poorly written story, poor graphics, excessive bugs, poor gameplay, poor game mechanics, exceptionally bad sound, etc., then there is more reason to believe the 3/10 score, and the disreputable characters are simply the psychological icing on the cake that pushed his opinion further to the extreme to a 3/10 rather than something more like 5/10 or 6/10. Perhaps 4/10 would be a more appropriate score in the later case in an effort to give more proper meaning to the 1 -10 scale of game rating, with scores like 4/10, 5/10, and 6/10 having the meanings of slightly below average, average, and slightly above average, respectively, in quality.

I don't know the exact answer. I need to actually read his review; though, that my not clarify my own opinion much more since GTA is not the kind of game I find preferential to play.

Spoiler: My stuff. You read it! It's in here. Really.

It was 3.5 out of 5. Not Ten. Also, besides the characters (and some of the writing/themes of the game), Greg actually seemed to like GTA 5.

He just said that playing characters who to him seemed like just terrible people, in the end wore him down.

The difference between GTA 5 and other games where you play terrible people, like Spec OPS The Line, is hundreds of hours of being that evil person you don't like.

Some people seem to be forgetting what Jim first said in the video. If you don't like playing the game because you don't like the characters, that is a fair complaint.

Think about it. In the game if you do well at playing you're rewarded. And with story games, one of those rewards is seeing how well the characters do after you help them out. However, if you don't like the characters, then you are then made to help out people you don't like. Thus people you may even hate benefit from your efforts.
If that's how you feel about the game, then it's hard for it to be fun. Not many enjoy helping out people they don't like.
"Congratulations! That person you hate now has even more money and time to spend on being a prick!"

It's not about being the good guys or the bad guys, it's about if you can personally like the characters.
That comes down to the quality of writing, and personal taste.

For example, if you just list off the things The Joker has done without context, then most will end up thinking he is one of the most vile people on earth. People love the Joker, even though he is kind of just plain evil, because of the stories he is in, and the dialogue he is given.

Spoiler: Plus, a stylish suit look doesn't hurt.

Spoiler: It was not too big to hide! ;D

I had heard in Jim's video that the game was given a 3/10. It is possible that I misheard or misconstrued this fact, but that is the perception I was going by in my post. I presented my opinion on why or why not such a score may be justified given two particular hypothetical situations, and I explicitly mentioned (or tried to make somewhat clear) that these points were hypothetical. In my opinion, simply not liking the particular type of character being played is not sufficient to warrant such a low score (though it is definitely sufficient to warrant not wanting to play the game); however, if there were other significant details germane to the quality of design and construction of the game in which the game faired significantly poorly in those regards, then the score may be more justified.

Now, taking what you're saying at face-value, that the score is actually 3.5/5, then this starts sounding a little like the "Hate out of 10" problem that Jim has talked on in a previous video. Couple this also with the score inflation that has been assigned to the perceived meaning of review scores, instead of 5/10 being of average quality, 8/10 is taken as being of average quality.

This probably also points out how a singular review score is not sufficient due to the subjectiveness of the review. A reviewer that prefers a particular type, aesthetic, genre, or style of game is likely to give a significantly higher score to a game than one that is ambivalent or disliking of the game's type, aesthetic, genre, or style. In my opinion, it would be nice to have review scores done in triplets, with one score by a reviewer that has preference for the game, one score by a reviewer that is ambivalent preference for the game, and one score by a review that has adverse preference for the game. These scores would, of course, need to be clearly marked as such. The unfortunately problem with such a system is that it is extremely time and personnel intensive and likely impractical to implement by any singular reviewing publication. However, across the aggregate of reviewing publications (i.e., using the power of the Internet), this may be more realizable. If there is the cross-publication standard for reviewers to clearly notate their preference for the game, then it becomes possible for game buyers to look across reviews and see the balance of scores between the different levels of preference and make a between judgement of the quality of the game. (There probably also needs to be a cross-publication standard for review scores and how they are assigned, but I think most people are smart enough to do the conversion mentally.) The assumption here is that a game of nearly "objectively" (I use that word with a continent made entirely of salt attached) high quality should garner a reasonably high score (7-8/10 or better) from even those of ambivalent or adverse preference toward the game, given those with preference for the game a greater sense of comfort that the game will be one they intensely enjoy. Essentially, it would be nice to have some idea how the reviewer's subjective personal preferences slant his/her particular review score and have that clearly notated.

We all know that one really needs to read the review, not just look at the score, but the score does make a nice quick filter, if the gamer already has sufficient knowledge to determine if the game is within his preference. However, for those borderline cases, for example 6-8/10, filtering by review score becomes error prone, and the gamer is forced to spend effort researching reviews carefully to determine the worth of purchasing a game. While this is doable, it can become exhaustive after a sufficient number of games. At such a point, the gamer will likely just ignore any reviews and just seek a means of pre-testing the game (rentals or borrowing from a friend, relative, etc.) to determine directly if the game is worth purchasing. It becomes the point that only in the extreme cases that the review score allows quick decision on purchase. Even then, due to various corruptions of the review process that may occur, extreme high scores may be held as suspect.

Gah! Sorry for the wall-o-text response. Long story short, I wasn't really trying to state definitely one way or the other on the particulars of Greg's score, only that I could see justification in one situation but not so much in the other, without making any declaration on the exact situation that occurred, since, as I explicitly admitted, I hadn't actually taken the time to read Greg's review.

Don't worry. I knew what you were going for. Just wanted to give ya the right information. People have actually been complaining about GTAV getting 9/10s (or as Jim put it, "Whine out of ten").
What I said wasn't really to you, but to others who seem to be thinking everyone has got to like the same kind of things in games, or play for the same reasons.

And that the argument isn't about bad guys vs. good guys, but if you can enjoy being the characters or not.

Also, I agree with getting multiple reviews. Best way to get a feel for the game. For Example, Adam Sessler, from Rev 3 presented about the same situation that Greg did for his review for GTAV, but in a positive way. Different people will have different experiences, so you should get as many examples from people you share tastes with.

 

[-Dragmire-]

To Play The Villain

Some gamers are skipping Grand Theft Auto V, unwilling to play the role of a thief, a gangbanger, or a psychopath. While others may shy away from being the villain, Jim Sterling actively revels in it.

Watch Video

Well, I'm kind of hoping your new found reading material finds it's way into your poetry Jim!

 

[Soak]

3,5/10? I see 3,5/5, which somewhat is a different thing, no? Whatever, i don't care too much about scores anyways.

However, both points taken, on one side the dislike of "having to play a horrible person" and on the other side being fascinated by it. I'd say, that's part of what's so awesome about video games, being able to "walk in someone elses shoes", either liking the design and/or fits of those shoes, or not. In games where you're able to chose how to play your character, i often like to first play "intuitive", most of the time "goodish" and after i'm finished (or sometimes i already do it on the first run) create an opposite character, just to see how i feel playing it and what impact taking different dispositions actually has on the game. And i actually think it is interesting, that i had pretty different experiences with different games, sometimes liking the way the game environment reacts, or the "empowerment" which might come along with it, sometimes feeling good and sometimes bad that way, often depending on the game itself! Sometimes i love games who actually force me in the role of someone i am not in real life, sometimes i hate it, but in those cases it is mostly because of the "how", what i would call bad game design.
Now, i actually haven't played GTA5 yet, not even 4, or most of the titles from generation 3 (still liked 2 best, but by now it's probably just nostalgia), so i still don't know for sure how 5 is actually dealing with the issue.
Sooo, i'd say "opinions taken", but what is the actual issue here? Having different opinions about it, which i think too often is a bad starting point to have discussions about, most of the time leading to nothing, or the question how GTA5 is actually dealing with all the "horrible" stuff in it? Does it deliver believable characters? Is it glorifying, criticising, or neutral about it? What does it mean for us, that such a big, known title is made that way?

But, then, what the heck? Seeing the age gate i was expecting something like your video on violance, not reading a line out of a porn comic-magazine-whatever. Aghua... i don't even know what to say, this was friggin horrible and vulgar - and kind of arousing.
Thank god for you, Jim.

 

[Pills_Here]

"Greg 'the Demon King' Tito"... THis is why I love you, Jim

 

[TheMigrantSoldier]

Well, this is an interesting one.

Can't say I entirely agree with villains always being inherently more interesting than heroes and anti-heroes. Sometimes having a character with inhuman motivations can seem interesting. Sometimes they can look like cartoon caricatures whose only purpose is to give the hero something to stick a sword in.

Take Deathwing from WoW for example. Yay, he blows up continents with the wag of a tail, so cool. His motivation? Give the world something to fight and the players something to loot... because he goes insane because C'thulhu did it. Even as a big bad Warcraft villain, that's a little trite. He starts to actually become a character after death when his motivations are explained by Wrathion. On the other hand, what I find interesting about the titans in SnK (Only a few episodes in) is that they're so enigmatic.

Of course, when actually PLAYING a villain in GTA5, Jim likes it because it intentionally makes him feel unsettled. I can definitely see the appeal in that. I can also see why many wouldn't find any sort of appeal. I'm personally on the fence with that one.

Out of topic, it's a good thing I fled at the sight of School Daze.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

I would say I like playing as a Villain, but from Gregs review the protagonists just sounded lazily written.

I like it when a had guy and villian has just cause, even if it comes down to some mental disorder. What makes a bad guy even better is playing witness to their downfall, Capt Walker from Spec Ops and Walter White from Breaking Bad are two such great cases.
I felt the protagonist from Saints Row was cartoony, and I will lament that I found a lack in motive to be something I found lacking in the character. I eventually came to the conclusion that the character was driven by a psychological need to be top dog, in that the character wasn't trully content until they had control. Over time however the protagonist grew tired of their lacking influence, hence the need to rise from gang boss, to celebrity, to the president. Until their wouldn't be anybody who could oppose their influence.

But with that said I'm mostly not interested in GTAV because I've already played Saints Row. I don't care how technically profienct it is, just sounds sort of boring, especially in contrast to what can be in done in SR.

I'll leave it at; a faultless hero is as boring as the cartoonish villian. The best Villain is the kind that sees himself as the hero, but a dick just being a dick, eh.

 

[HalfTangible]

3,5/10? I see 3,5/5, which somewhat is a different thing, no? Whatever, i don't care too much about scores anyways.

I think that was the joke People don't usually give a Star rating out of 10, there's generally 5 tops.

 

[I.Muir]

I feel I miss out on a lot of story elements in games because I never feel anything for the protagonist whether they are building hospitals or eating baby's. Whether I do a good or bad run in fable, or infamous means much the same thing to me but I've yet to see any way to be more evil than simply killing somebody. It's like they have no imagination when it comes to being deliberately evil.

 

[Quiotu]

I would say I like playing as a Villain, but from Gregs review the protagonists just sounded lazily written.

I like it when a had guy and villian has just cause, even if it comes down to some mental disorder. What makes a bad guy even better is playing witness to their downfall, Capt Walker from Spec Ops and Walter White from Breaking Bad are two such great cases.
I felt the protagonist from Saints Row was cartoony, and I will lament that I found a lack in motive to be something I found lacking in the character. I eventually came to the conclusion that the character was driven by a psychological need to be top dog, in that the character wasn't trully content until they had control. Over time however the protagonist grew tired of their lacking influence, hence the need to rise from gang boss, to celebrity, to the president. Until their wouldn't be anybody who could oppose their influence.

But with that said I'm mostly not interested in GTAV because I've already played Saints Row. I don't care how technically profienct it is, just sounds sort of boring, especially in contrast to what can be in done in SR.

I'll leave it at; a faultless hero is as boring as the cartoonish villian. The best Villain is the kind that sees himself as the hero, but a dick just being a dick, eh.

Michael in GTA V literally says what you're wanting to hear to his son not long into the game. 'I get I've done bad things, but I always thought I was being the good guy' is what he says in a nutshell. So he's that kind of villain, but there's two other villains in GTA V that are completely different. Besides, this is GTA we're talking about... even the 'good guys' aren't good by any stretch of the imagination. GTA has never been about meeting good characters, and people are being awfully silly if they think that'll happen.

None of the MCs in the GTA series are good, but you can like how they're played out. That doesn't make them 'good', that just makes them likeable in your eyes. Or if not likeable, at least fun watching their chaos in action.

 

[otakon17]

Huh, wonder why there was an age ga- *Jim proceeds to read furry porn.*


[HEADING=2]Welp.

That's enough internet for today.[/HEADING]

I dry heaved, I mean I've been around the internet but DAMN that was just ...oh God I don't feel well.

 

[Orekoya]

That's kinda a problem because this is a published graphic novel for sale that someone sent him and comics that contain copyrighted characters don't tend to be published for sale because of legalities.

I was under the impression you could buy henti books of copyrighted characters. I've seen hundreds of them for everything pertaining to anime, video games, etc. When these things are posted online, they are usually labeled as 'scans' from their respective books as well, and they certainly look like they've been scanned from a book. That said, I don't know if the people making these should be making them, nor will I agree/disagree with the practice. Just saying they exist.

Yea, hentai. That's a whole other can of legal worms to get into.
The short version - In Japan it is sorta legal to do that or rather it is a legal grey area where it's not as explicitly illegal enough.

The long version - Lawsuits are ridiculously expensive and the degree of resemblance that needs to be proven is greater there than it is state-side. So unless they can prove it is a carbon copy, such as tracing or other art asset theft, then it'll get thrown out: wasting money and time thereby making it seem almost pointless to even pursue. Now add to it that their market is renown for being much more 'in the now' than ours so it's harder for the creators to show losses on completed works since it's unlikely to affect their sales, making another legal hurdle that the one filing the suit would have to hop.

 

[Orekoya]

Double Post