Jimquisition: Will Grand Theft Auto V Have No Balls?
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
I didn't have a problem with GTA4s lack of stupidity. I just din't want to have to go to boring titty bars, out to lunch, bowling, play pool or fly Brucie around the city with his sluts du jour.
Or worse be forced to get so drunk that I cant walk down the street. Has anyone reall been that drunk and not passed out?
Subtract that from GTA and add more optional side missions with multiple choice outcome and I think that'd be a winner.
And while I'm ripping on Rockstar games; you know what Red Dead redemption needed? Some fucking consequences. That entire game felt like it was on retarded child mode.
When i lost my horse i got a new one in five minutes.
When I lost health it came back so quickly during combat that the cover mechanic was essentially worthless.
The auto aim shot birds out of the sky while I was fighting guys in a graveyard.
And what was the point of collecting herbs and killing wild life? If there had been some sort of health poultice/hunger mechanic or need to sell any products to buy other items that would have been intriguing.
And that cannibal guy could have had a more satisfying resolution. I hogtied him and took him back to town but nobody seemed to care. I had to let him go and shoot him in the back of the head.
Or worse be forced to get so drunk that I cant walk down the street. Has anyone reall been that drunk and not passed out?
Subtract that from GTA and add more optional side missions with multiple choice outcome and I think that'd be a winner.
And while I'm ripping on Rockstar games; you know what Red Dead redemption needed? Some fucking consequences. That entire game felt like it was on retarded child mode.
When i lost my horse i got a new one in five minutes.
When I lost health it came back so quickly during combat that the cover mechanic was essentially worthless.
The auto aim shot birds out of the sky while I was fighting guys in a graveyard.
And what was the point of collecting herbs and killing wild life? If there had been some sort of health poultice/hunger mechanic or need to sell any products to buy other items that would have been intriguing.
And that cannibal guy could have had a more satisfying resolution. I hogtied him and took him back to town but nobody seemed to care. I had to let him go and shoot him in the back of the head.
Well that a little less disturbing,sorry to think bad of all mighty Jim Sterling(although he seen very happy rubbing that dildo,not that there anything wrong with that just saying).beetrain said:
The thing is Saints Row isn't what gta used to be, it's a cartoonishly absurd characeture of what gta used to be. Where gta once had balance it dipped completely into pretentiousness with gta4.
And I'm not saying that they have to have a total posycho, ruthlessly climbing his way to the top in every game but I don't want some sad sack moving to a new city to escape his criminal past every single time either and R* has been really overusing that theme lately. I'm just saying they should mix it up.
Also, if R* did a better job at the serious storyline and it didn't feel all forced and pretentious, I would totally support their new standard. However, it seems like every time R* is trying to make me cry (usually by killing off a main character) the overwrought drama tends to make me laugh instead.
And I'm not saying that they have to have a total posycho, ruthlessly climbing his way to the top in every game but I don't want some sad sack moving to a new city to escape his criminal past every single time either and R* has been really overusing that theme lately. I'm just saying they should mix it up.
Also, if R* did a better job at the serious storyline and it didn't feel all forced and pretentious, I would totally support their new standard. However, it seems like every time R* is trying to make me cry (usually by killing off a main character) the overwrought drama tends to make me laugh instead.
I wouldn't mind if GTA was actually good, or the characters were more than one note, etc. That's what Jim's talking about, but we didn't get it.
Unless you're the sort of person who find Twilight deep, in which case, Saints Row the Third is also mature and in-depth and explores non-sociopathic characters.
Unless you're the sort of person who find Twilight deep, in which case, Saints Row the Third is also mature and in-depth and explores non-sociopathic characters.
I don't think it was the tameness itself that hurt GTA4 as much as the juxtiposition of character vs setting. Vice city stories, and eve San Andreas had the same issue: we're supposed to like the guy, sympathize with him and get to know him as not all bad and trying to do good overall, all while stealing cars, doing vigilante missions, driving on the sidewalk, and evrything else without consequence. Makes no sense.
Not that it couldn't work, and wouldn't be good, but you need to rewrite the whole mechanics of the world, or at least have a morality based branching story. Then again, with Bioware and Bethesda making the waves they are these days, I think any static character or story path would hurt the game overall.
Not that it couldn't work, and wouldn't be good, but you need to rewrite the whole mechanics of the world, or at least have a morality based branching story. Then again, with Bioware and Bethesda making the waves they are these days, I think any static character or story path would hurt the game overall.
Wow... this is a bit of a tough one to tackle. I'd like to say first of all that i agree with what has been said here - that Saints Row filled a void that was left when Rockstar decided to grow up and mature their flagship franchise. However, i will contest that that's nothing more than stating the fucking obvious. We can go one step further than that.
Just because something changed artistic and conceptual direction, it does not mean that people no longer want it to go back to its roots. Yes, the gap has been 'filled' by Saints Row, but at the end of the day, Saints Row is not Grand Theft Auto. I've come across plenty of people who loved the outright wackiness and parody of Vice City and San Andreas, but could not stand the absurdity and excessive gang culture worship of Saints Row. (Note that VC was a parody of 80's and 90's culture more than it was about gang culture, for example)
Being a fan of A does not mean you will also be a fan of B when it is presented as an alternative. To give an example, i might like lemons, but not like limes. They're both fruit, they're both citric, but damnit i just like lemons. Limes are similar, but not the same.
Logically we'd all just go with the flow and accept that things should fill their respective roles. It makes sense; neither one is in direct competition with each other. But the consumer base is a fickle ***** who does not look at things logically. It doesn't matter how rationally you try to explain something. At the end of the day, Saints Row is not the same as their beloved Grand Theft Auto. They grew up with Claude and Tommy Vecetti. Their idea of parody and satire is one that balances a fine line between the serious and the silly. Saints Row is completely off its rocker, while San Andreas still had its serious moments, particularly those regarding family and making it in a rough neighborhood. San Andreas was still absurd in places and had that wacky GTA humour, but it wasn't outright unapologetically stupid like Saints Row is. I can't help but feel that this kind of "so utterly batshit" humour is something that appeals primarily to the American market, more so than the "half serious, half wacky" approach, hence why Saints Row garnered so much popularity and you see GTA and SR polarised as much as they are. Developers feel that the prime demographic is either going to be expecting a serious play it straight tale or a ludicrous glorification of the genre itself with no room left for something in the middle, while fans of the original GTA are still waiting for the second coming of what really popularised the genre. Personally i feel that GTA3 is the pinnacle of the series and i remember feeling that Liberty City at the time had a certain grittiness about it which was offset by the politically incorrect radio talk shows, the questionable motives of most of the cast and the ability to drive on the wrong side of the road at 100mph with cops so much as blinking. Still, through all that surrealism, you had tales of rising through the mafia and the seedy underworld of politicans and big cities which is what GTA so special in the first place. That's what i want to rekindle. A realistic world with unrealistic possibilities. The self-awareness that it's a video game, but it's a video game with something to say about the world it portrays.
Just because something changed artistic and conceptual direction, it does not mean that people no longer want it to go back to its roots. Yes, the gap has been 'filled' by Saints Row, but at the end of the day, Saints Row is not Grand Theft Auto. I've come across plenty of people who loved the outright wackiness and parody of Vice City and San Andreas, but could not stand the absurdity and excessive gang culture worship of Saints Row. (Note that VC was a parody of 80's and 90's culture more than it was about gang culture, for example)
Being a fan of A does not mean you will also be a fan of B when it is presented as an alternative. To give an example, i might like lemons, but not like limes. They're both fruit, they're both citric, but damnit i just like lemons. Limes are similar, but not the same.
Logically we'd all just go with the flow and accept that things should fill their respective roles. It makes sense; neither one is in direct competition with each other. But the consumer base is a fickle ***** who does not look at things logically. It doesn't matter how rationally you try to explain something. At the end of the day, Saints Row is not the same as their beloved Grand Theft Auto. They grew up with Claude and Tommy Vecetti. Their idea of parody and satire is one that balances a fine line between the serious and the silly. Saints Row is completely off its rocker, while San Andreas still had its serious moments, particularly those regarding family and making it in a rough neighborhood. San Andreas was still absurd in places and had that wacky GTA humour, but it wasn't outright unapologetically stupid like Saints Row is. I can't help but feel that this kind of "so utterly batshit" humour is something that appeals primarily to the American market, more so than the "half serious, half wacky" approach, hence why Saints Row garnered so much popularity and you see GTA and SR polarised as much as they are. Developers feel that the prime demographic is either going to be expecting a serious play it straight tale or a ludicrous glorification of the genre itself with no room left for something in the middle, while fans of the original GTA are still waiting for the second coming of what really popularised the genre. Personally i feel that GTA3 is the pinnacle of the series and i remember feeling that Liberty City at the time had a certain grittiness about it which was offset by the politically incorrect radio talk shows, the questionable motives of most of the cast and the ability to drive on the wrong side of the road at 100mph with cops so much as blinking. Still, through all that surrealism, you had tales of rising through the mafia and the seedy underworld of politicans and big cities which is what GTA so special in the first place. That's what i want to rekindle. A realistic world with unrealistic possibilities. The self-awareness that it's a video game, but it's a video game with something to say about the world it portrays.
Sometimes I feel you tend to hold whatever opinion the controversial one is. So many of your previous comments have been Saints Row supportive style and I'm surprised to find you supporting GTA here.
But you're opinion is right these are things that can both exist and I guess that makes your opinion make metasense too. You'll defend the crude and the noble because both are cool in different ways
But you're opinion is right these are things that can both exist and I guess that makes your opinion make metasense too. You'll defend the crude and the noble because both are cool in different ways
I think I'll be getting both, too. Of course, SR3 provides more on the gameplay department, but the great stories (and side stories with random characters off the beaten path) of GTA IV and Redemption may entice me to get GTA V partly to witness what situations this new guy will go through. Also, jet planes in both.
Is anyone else having trouble watching this in HD every damn week? I've had to switch to SQ or wait a few days every week for as long as I can remember and I'm getting sick of it.
EDIT:
OT: Great stuff as usual, Jim. Now I really wanna get my hands on Saints Row.
EDIT:
OT: Great stuff as usual, Jim. Now I really wanna get my hands on Saints Row.
A fair point, I myself am not a fan of either game series or the experience they offer, but I can respect the tangents both are going off on to cater to both audiences.
JQ, while I agree in spirit with your argument here, there's a few notes I wanted to add. One of the biggest drawbacks to GTA4 was that it seemed like a huge downgrade from the open-world view of San Andreas. We loyal R* fans buy into the game expecting at the least some of the better features from the previous game and in the end are handed a brown bag with the shit we didn't want, and then they smear that shit in our face every time the cell phone rings.Jim Sterling said:
Car customization, gone. Airplanes, gone. Helicopters that were actually FUN to fly, gone. Cool clothing customization, GONE! Annoying "date" requests, not removed and if anything amped the fuck up in annoyance factor.
Also, Liberty City's changes from the original map I can understand a little bit of, but I wonder why they removed the Dam, which would have been a pretty cool landmark to keep in game.
I actually felt that the 2 DLC stories were much better than the main story.
Also, one other thing... the map itself seemed large but empty, devoid of color and flavor... I felt myself getting lost because the blurry buildings all looked the same.
Well, what about that? The last few weeks I always thought that the Jimquisition made valid points (not always entirely new, but valid) but this week, something was wrong.
And that was his mention of Red Dead Redemption.
The main character of that game was a mentally five-year old, unlikeable, irresponsible, egocentric sociopathic fuckwit. I could have enjoyed the game, had not John F. Marston messed it all up with his whining and bitching, paired with an almost aggressively stupid ignorance of the misery of the people around him because he was so sunken in his own (uninteresting) fate.
He single-handedly fucks over (sorry, there is no other word for that) a torn country by fighting for both sides simultaneously, then acts all surprised when one side "betrays" him and so he "joins" (har, har) the other side, killing thousands of people in the process, all just because he wants to shoot one single guy. Way to go.
And furthermore, the guy is a tool. EVERY SINGLE PERSON he encounters on his travels has something for him to do, be it feeding them breakfast or shooting their grandmother, and he groans and bitches and whines and then he STILL does it. And when he finally got his wife back, she just bitchslaps him and he DOESN'T EVEN FUCKING COMPLAIN. And the game is not over, which is even worse.
This is NOT good storytelling. John Marston was the first character I ever played which I badly wanted to die at the end of the game. And it was a shame, in a way, because there were a bunch of interesting topics and plot points, which were all ruined by either John "Cry me a river" Marston, one of his entourage of dickheads or the failed attempt to include some "funny lines" (I'm looking at you, Irish).
And while all this angsty, whiny, cringeworthy drama is going on in the brackground, we can shoot people and wildlife, play a variety of uninteresting games, shoot criminals, pick flowers, kill people in duels and most importantly MURDER DUDES.
John Marston is a sociopath, and even worse, a narcisstic sociopath.
And because the game tried to be gritty, "realistic" and even laughably political at times, the aforementioned non-cutscene bits seemed weirdly out of place, because we know that Johnnyboy is a tool and a *****, despite his cool pose while he shoots another dude who (rightfully) accuses him of cheating at poker.
And then we have Saints Row II. A game which at first glance does offer one thing and one thing only: pure, mindless, genocidal fun or to paraphrase Benjamin Sebastian Y. Godzilla Croshaw, a game in which you play someone resembling a Batman villain.
This character, despite being modeled by the player (including his VOICE) was (because he looked like me, I guess, but not just because of that) far, far more likeable than J. "abuse me" Marston, because his actions had consistency. He was not a tool, he made other people his tool and, of course, used a lot of rather deadly tools.
And Saints Row II did another thing, a thing which only games can really do: it build up an atmosphere, a setting, a scene and by that, it made some very satirical, one could even say scathing comments on society in general and American society in particular.
But it did not interfere with the fun. You can romp through the game, mindlessly slaughtering Ronin minions, but if you want to think, there is enough you can think about. Topics range from the different aesthetics of the Barrio and the Suburb up to the question why all these people join you and the role Ultor plays.
And by giving emphasis to the characters rather than the presentation of overused clichéd bullshit in the cutscenes, the fates of SR IIs characters got to me more than those of the bleak puppets of RDR.
So I have to say, apparently Rockstar haven't lost their balls, because from what I saw and you said, they are still licking them like madmend and sell us the fluid, thinking it is the greatest thing in the history of mankind.
And that was his mention of Red Dead Redemption.
The main character of that game was a mentally five-year old, unlikeable, irresponsible, egocentric sociopathic fuckwit. I could have enjoyed the game, had not John F. Marston messed it all up with his whining and bitching, paired with an almost aggressively stupid ignorance of the misery of the people around him because he was so sunken in his own (uninteresting) fate.
He single-handedly fucks over (sorry, there is no other word for that) a torn country by fighting for both sides simultaneously, then acts all surprised when one side "betrays" him and so he "joins" (har, har) the other side, killing thousands of people in the process, all just because he wants to shoot one single guy. Way to go.
And furthermore, the guy is a tool. EVERY SINGLE PERSON he encounters on his travels has something for him to do, be it feeding them breakfast or shooting their grandmother, and he groans and bitches and whines and then he STILL does it. And when he finally got his wife back, she just bitchslaps him and he DOESN'T EVEN FUCKING COMPLAIN. And the game is not over, which is even worse.
This is NOT good storytelling. John Marston was the first character I ever played which I badly wanted to die at the end of the game. And it was a shame, in a way, because there were a bunch of interesting topics and plot points, which were all ruined by either John "Cry me a river" Marston, one of his entourage of dickheads or the failed attempt to include some "funny lines" (I'm looking at you, Irish).
And while all this angsty, whiny, cringeworthy drama is going on in the brackground, we can shoot people and wildlife, play a variety of uninteresting games, shoot criminals, pick flowers, kill people in duels and most importantly MURDER DUDES.
John Marston is a sociopath, and even worse, a narcisstic sociopath.
And because the game tried to be gritty, "realistic" and even laughably political at times, the aforementioned non-cutscene bits seemed weirdly out of place, because we know that Johnnyboy is a tool and a *****, despite his cool pose while he shoots another dude who (rightfully) accuses him of cheating at poker.
And then we have Saints Row II. A game which at first glance does offer one thing and one thing only: pure, mindless, genocidal fun or to paraphrase Benjamin Sebastian Y. Godzilla Croshaw, a game in which you play someone resembling a Batman villain.
This character, despite being modeled by the player (including his VOICE) was (because he looked like me, I guess, but not just because of that) far, far more likeable than J. "abuse me" Marston, because his actions had consistency. He was not a tool, he made other people his tool and, of course, used a lot of rather deadly tools.
And Saints Row II did another thing, a thing which only games can really do: it build up an atmosphere, a setting, a scene and by that, it made some very satirical, one could even say scathing comments on society in general and American society in particular.
But it did not interfere with the fun. You can romp through the game, mindlessly slaughtering Ronin minions, but if you want to think, there is enough you can think about. Topics range from the different aesthetics of the Barrio and the Suburb up to the question why all these people join you and the role Ultor plays.
And by giving emphasis to the characters rather than the presentation of overused clichéd bullshit in the cutscenes, the fates of SR IIs characters got to me more than those of the bleak puppets of RDR.
So I have to say, apparently Rockstar haven't lost their balls, because from what I saw and you said, they are still licking them like madmend and sell us the fluid, thinking it is the greatest thing in the history of mankind.
I might give Saints Row 3 a try then. GTA4, Red Dead Redemption, and LA Noire had pretty poor stories. All very well and good to try and add depth to a game, but Rockstar ain't BioWare. Not by a long chalk. Conrad Verner was there for about 0.1% of Mass Effect, Shepard didn't have to go fucking bowling with him.
edit: I liked LA Noire btw, the individual cases were well played but the overarching story detracted from the experience and took the player away from the most interesting aspect of the game i.e. the homicide cases
edit: I liked LA Noire btw, the individual cases were well played but the overarching story detracted from the experience and took the player away from the most interesting aspect of the game i.e. the homicide cases