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!Uratoh said:
Jimquisition: To Play The Villain
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.
Also, I wish I'd played GTA at any point so I could join in the conversation.
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.
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").geizr said:Imp Emissary said:geizr said: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.
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.
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.
Well, I'm kind of hoping your new found reading material finds it's way into your poetry Jim!Jimothy Sterling said:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think that was the jokeSoak said:
People don't usually give a Star rating out of 10, there's generally 5 tops.
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.
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.MrHide-Patten said:
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.
Yea, hentai. That's a whole other can of legal worms to get into.xPixelatedx said:
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.
