228: Fall of the House of Bellic

[Brendan Main]

If Niko wants 'morality-game' style vindication, he had better get on that whole 'saving orphan kittens' thing. And let me tell you, orphan kittens are a real pain to save. You give them all the gruel they can eat, but nooo, they want more. And the paperwork! Don't get me started on the paperwork.

Incidentally, when Rockstar gets around to making that game about saving orphan kittens in New York City, I hope it looks Exactly. Like. This.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3xafme2PWA

 

[UpcountryGecko]

As has been said by everyone else, excellent article.

 

[Silva]

While the article is quite thought provoking, I can't help but feel that the art of the game is being analyzed for being deeper than it really is. There is no real evidence that Niko wants a steady job or a family.

Wrong - he says this both to Kate and to Packie (later in the friendship missions for those two). It is also a repeated theme in the game, you just have to listen to the dialogue properly to take it in. Before the final mission, Niko wanted/wants to settle down with Kate.

While Rockstar made a decent effort in making Niko a more "human" character by lunging him into America a poor man, there is nothing to suggest that he wants a family. However if there was a female lead that pulled him in a domestic direction, (other than Kate, she was merely just an option and not framed in a cinematic fashion), than we'd feel Niko's pain. Ultimately the latest installments of GTA are flawed by characters of no consequence.

"Characters of no consequence"? Let's check up on that one...

Roman - gives you a taxi ride when you need it, also has a serious issue with gambling which causes strife for Niko. Consequences.
Brucie - gives you a helicopter ride when you ask, also has a roid rage issue which gets you killing people who don't need to die. Consequences.
Little Jacob - gives you a cheaper gun shop, also has a problem with smoking illegal substances, leading to botched drug deals and conflicts with his boss, Badman. Consequences.
Mikhail - anger issues, kills people irresponsibly and gets you into strife. Consequences.
Dimitri - so coldly rational that he betrays you for money. He may die as a result. Consequences.
Dwayne/Playboy X - give you gang backup, the conflict between these two ends in a choice for Niko in who lives (and gets fleshed out as a character or not) and who dies. Consequences.
Packie - gives you the ability to make car bombs, also has family conflicts with his various brothers which Niko ends up taking sides in. Consequences.

In conclusion, what a nonsense statement.

The biggest moment in GTA 4 for me was when the business and apartment was torched as the mission prior lead up to that and the characters suffered in the form of the plot. They had to leave their old way behind. This never really happened again. It's strange too how Niko appears so soft and conflicted about pretty much anything that comes his way and then I'm suddenly given control over a rocket launcher and a machine gun, killing thousands of police and mowing down pedestrians.

There is always a disparity between what the player will choose, and what the character on the screen will want to do as part of the plot. True, a good game often has a character that has a personality to match all possible actions, but in GTAIV the options are so vast that disparity is unavoidable.

The fact is that GTAIV gives you more chances to live peacefully than any other GTA game (fittingly to Niko's character, without losing the actual ability to be a violent person). Hell, San Andreas had gangs who attacked you wilfully before you DID anything. But if you are just walking around in IV, the worst that can happen to you on the streets is you run into another criminal, who you can still run away from, or get run over by accident (both of which can happen to non-criminals). There are also more options to get friendly with characters, which is something you could never do before. Yes, the missions require violence, but business and pleasure are two different things with characters. For Niko, violence is business.

To enjoy the full narrative, I felt I had to invent a problem for Niko that simply wasn't in the game. I imagined Niko suffered from an undiagnosed mental condition. It's the only thing that would allow the sandbox style mahem and heavy narrative to co-exist. I feel the writer of this article has done the same. He was forced to imagine the parts that filled in the gaps between the gameplay and the story. Would the game as a whole be better if this wasn't a sandbox? Would the game be worse?

On the contrary, there are no imaginations in this article. Every part of what was said, by memory, was proven by the dialogue between the characters. Fair enough if you didn't listen, but it's not worthwhile to presume to know a game if you didn't take in the full content.

 

[ironlordthemad]

Great article and a good point at the end, Niko Bellik in another universe?

I'd like to see that, even as a parody cameo...
As long as his idiot cousin doesn't show up ill be fine with it!
Seriously that guy was not funny or in the slightest bit entertaining, I played this game too say that i had and to be honest he was the most likely to make me throw the controller through the screen.

 

[RedFox042]

Lovely ending paragraph. I'm replaying the game knowing full well what lies ahead, knowing what the end result of his actions will be. In the end he has the money and the cars to live out his life. To get into his Bobcat and just drive out until no one knows about him. But even then he would not be left along for as Dr. Manhattan says at the end of "The Watchmen" " Be wary Ozymandias, Nothing ever ends."

 

[RicoTheSaboteur]

Someone tells me later I could have spared him if I chased him all the way to the edge, where he falls off. Instead of stomping on his hands, you hoist him up and let him escape. Hell of a way to spare somebody. If I really liked him, I would have chased him all the way to the edge, helped him up, then bought him a milkshake.

By missing this I think you missed a chat that underlines one of the key subject of the game. The runner explains that he tried to flee from eastern Europe by coming to Liberty City, but, since the only people he knew here were from eastern Europe, he feels like he did not manage to escape at all. One of the most poignant moment of GTAIV as far as I am concerned.

EDIT: One of the best if not the best piece I read in The Escapist since the first issue btw.

 

[Brendan Main]

By missing this I think you missed a chat that underlines one of the key subject of the game. The runner explains that he tried to flee from eastern Europe by coming to Liberty City, but, since the only people he knew here were from eastern Europe, he feels like he did not manage to escape at all. One of the most poignant moment of GTAIV as far as I am concerned.

Well, there's demonstrable proof that I am a terrible person. That milkshake is getting punched up to a banana split. WITH CHERRIES. Sort of a "Sorry you came to America to escape your crime-riddled past only to discover that The American Dream is a star-spangled crock of crap" present.

Seriously, though, I had no idea. I think that this type of brief interlude I missed might warrant another playthrough. I appreciate the heads-up.

 

[The Random One]

While the article is quite thought provoking, I can't help but feel that the art of the game is being analyzed for being deeper than it really is. There is no real evidence that Niko wants a steady job or a family. While Rockstar made a decent effort in making Niko a more "human" character by lunging him into America a poor man, there is nothing to suggest that he wants a family. However if there was a female lead that pulled him in a domestic direction, (other than Kate, she was merely just an option and not framed in a cinematic fashion), than we'd feel Niko's pain. Ultimately the latest installments of GTA are flawed by characters of no consequence. The biggest moment in GTA 4 for me was when the business and apartment was torched as the mission prior lead up to that and the characters suffered in the form of the plot. They had to leave their old way behind. This never really happened again. It's strange too how Niko appears so soft and conflicted about pretty much anything that comes his way and then I'm suddenly given control over a rocket launcher and a machine gun, killing thousands of police and mowing down pedestrians. To enjoy the full narrative, I felt I had to invent a problem for Niko that simply wasn't in the game. I imagined Niko suffered from an undiagnosed mental condition. It's the only thing that would allow the sandbox style mahem and heavy narrative to co-exist. I feel the writer of this article has done the same. He was forced to imagine the parts that filled in the gaps between the gameplay and the story. Would the game as a whole be better if this wasn't a sandbox? Would the game be worse?

To enjoy the full narrative, I simply didn't go around shooting random civilians, which I find incredinly drab. My attempts to drive like a sane person failed because every other driver assumed I would be driving recklessly and when I ended up stuck in traffic they assumed I was holding it up because I was a jerk.

I also think GTAIV has a great story, which unfortunately is buried between mountains of irrelevance. You're following an interesting plot thread here, then suddenly you have to do these inconsequential missions for this uninteresting characters for a poorly explained reason.

Something I realized some time ago is that every character in GTAIV is either an interesting and well-developed character or something dropped unchanged from Rockstar's Bag o' Stereotypes That Look Offensive But You Can't Quite Put Your Finger On Why. I find it curious that Roman is one of the most hated character, as he very clearly belongs to the first categories. The latter friendship 'missions' with him are some of the most well-written and touching lines in the game (much better than when a certain character hints at the fact that he was raped by his father by saying "I was abused by my father, oh golly!")

Spoiler

And something that has been in my mind for a while... after suffering painfully through the last missions so I could have seen both endings, I came to the conclusion that GTAIV has a bad ending and a good ending in a completely different way: both are bad for the character, but one is good storytelling and one isn't. One has the main antagonist, which, well, antagonizes you from the early game, be killed in the climax; and kills a character you spent a lot of time it, whether you like it or not (since he appears in several missions, including heavily emotional ones, such was one you choose to kill that guy or not), and who is friendly and definitively believes things can go better for him. The other kills the main antagonist too early, and then creates a new one out of a friendly character who showed too shortly before for people to have any connection to him; and kills a character who may have had no contact to the player before. I have no question in my mind that, if a 'canon' ending needs to be chosen, it's 'Deal'.

 

[Aurora219]

A really great article and a joy to read, although I must say I never felt they took Niko's character far enough.

Tommy Angelo in Mafia (I'll mention that game in every thread, even if it kills me) was a much more fleshed out character, although in the end, the characters are driven by the same thing; desperation.

And what happened to Tommy in the end was even worse than what happened to Niko; and the final monologue is fantastic.

I love the ending for Mafia. It's so fitting somehow, yet still a bit of a shock.

Good writing, I really enjoyed reading this article.

 

[Bernzz]

That was the best thing I have read all week.

Pretty much yeah, best thing I has read all week. And I'm reading a novel xD

 

[latenightapplepie]

Good read. This article makes me want to play GTA:IV again, paying more attention to the details.

 

[nezroy]

There's a more practical reason sandbox games try not to end on this kind of plot note. The end of GTA4 was so empty and hollow that, however artistically interesting it may have been, I put down the controller and never again set foot in the world of GTA4.

This was not the case with GTA3, VC, and SA... the benefit of ending "on top of the world" in those games was that you then got to spend a great deal of time enjoying your mastery of the environment; effectively giving us a chance to fully appreciate the sand in the box. I know there are many people who immediately jump into the open world and enjoy it regardless, but those are usually the same people who have never bothered to finish the main plot of any GTA game in the first place.

Fallout 3 suffered from this as well, only worse, because your inability to keep enjoying the sandbox world was actually enforced, and not simply based on your own despondent lack of interest. Of course you could always simply load your pre-end-game save in Fallout 3, but just as with GTA, without even the trappings of plot or immersion, the sandbox world loses its hold on me.

 

[Vilhelm123]

Brilliantly written article, best thing I've read on this site I reckon.

 

[myxomitosis87]

I recently played San Andreas and i'm finishing GTA4 right about now. And it's true GTA4 has a much deeper story. It would seem that by just adding an inner motive to a character it makes him way more dimensionnal and thus more loveable. But it's still a game. The gameplay is better in San Andreas. However, I dare anyone to tell me that visually, San Andreas looked better. Shame on those who said Rockstar could have done better with the graphics on GTA4. Don't tell me that when you drove around in Algonquin all you saw was grey.

Sorry, drifting away from the subject at hand. Great Article!

 

[SomeGuyNamedKy]

Really liked the bit at the end. Nico's character and story just doesn't fit into the reputation earned from earlier games. A different game could of done this story justice in my opinion.

 

[randommaster]

Nico Belic is a very interesting character, but I feel like Rockstar wasted his story in a GTA game. It may have been better as an expansion, like ToLC. That way the story can take a more central part and doesn't need to be interrupted with random violence. There would still be violence, but the story wouldn't be so jarring and mixed with random maintenance of all your crap.

Awesome character analysis, Brendon.

 

[stonybrowder]

I did actually enjoy playing grand theft auto 4. And in a way the story was sort of compelling, but it just did nothing for me emotionally. The common ground between all of the glowing reviews is how cinematic the story is, I believe one site likened it to being academy award worthy. I don't think it's too irrelevant to note that there is no cut scene soundtrack. If music was provided to the narrative could it have made for a better cinematic feel? I bring this up because the commercials for all of the grand theft auto games come packaged with an excellent score. GTA4's commercial with Niko sitting on the bench beside Faustin on the beach, telling him he could run to the tune of some sad eighties song, was beautiful. I wished so much for that type of art in the game. While that cut scene does play well with the silence, it is nothing compared to the moment in the trailer, which looked as though it were the trailer to an actual movie.

 

[Brendan Main]

There's a more practical reason sandbox games try not to end on this kind of plot note. The end of GTA4 was so empty and hollow that, however artistically interesting it may have been, I put down the controller and never again set foot in the world of GTA4.

I think you're on to something there. I had the same experience, actually - not simply with the ending scene, but that final, broken-hearted phone call from Mallorie (or Packie, you revenge-crazy monster.) It's spelled out loud and clear: Sure, you can keep playing if you want: Your enemies are dead and your pockets are full of cash. But... why bother?

I agree that there's something counterintuitive, even self-defeating about a sandbox game that convinces you of the futility of sandbox gaming. It takes chutzpah, that's for sure. But it strikes me that there remains an odd difference between a game I don't want to play out of sheer boredom, and a game I choose not to play out of some twisted sense of loyalty.

It's like something out of a lousy Yakov Smirnoff routine: In Soviet Russia, game beats you.

 

[Blatherscythe]

Like what everyone else said...


winwinwin.....winwinwinwin........winwinwin..........winwinwin...
win..................win..............win............win.............win..............win
winwin............win...............win...........win..........win......................
win..................win.............win.............win.........win........................
winwinwin......winwinwiwin...............win.........win........................
win..................win................................win...........win......................
win..................win................................win.............win..............win
winwinwin.....win.........................winwinwin...........winwinwin....