Grand Theft Auto 5 Made Me Sad.

[maninahat]

7. Do I need to go on?

He addressed that point in the article. All the examples you gave are the players choice, they are optional. If you don't like them, you don't do them. And as for Niko in GTA IV, yeah, that ain't great writing either and it received quite a lot of criticism after the initial hype around the game was over.

Actually Niko had major motivations and reasons for his behaviour. From the get go, he wants to get away from violence, and deplores getting back into it. His early violent acts are to help his own flesh and blood in times of peril, and then later, to get revenge on some horrific associates who betray and try to murder him. Also Niko reveals his long term game plan, (his real reason to be in America), which is to track down an old comrade who betrayed his unit.

Also, throughout the game, you can appreciate his weariness and confusion of American society. He is the only sensible voice, surrounded by man children, perverts, and lunatics. Niko is a violent, evil, terrible person in himself, but I thought the game took plenty of steps to make him relatable and give him a soul.

You didn't play the same GTA as the rest of us, then. Niko frequently does horrendous acts of violence purely to get paid. Even well into the game, when he has been paid nearing a million dollars for his crimes, he cooly asks for a higher wage or better terms to a deal that involved senseless murder. In fact, I believe it directly states "I'm only interested in money" more than once. The revenge mission Niko was on, was added purely for background colour and to keep the story moving forward in some way. It was lazy, written poorly and clashed with the way Niko acted in every scene past the intro hour.

No I played it the same way, and I too had the same problem consoling Niko the game character (troubled, regretful, mature) with my gameplay style (ultra-violent, childish, cash grabbing fun). The ludo-narrative dissonance took a lot away from that game's story. Nevertheless, the OPs issue was about creating a relatable character who you didn't mind following on his story, or letting him serve as your avatar. It was not about how they could make Niko mow down pedestrians right as he makes a heartfelt speech about sparing a comrade's life.

 

[Lono Shrugged]

I think that any form of art that makes you feel something, either revulsion or joy is accomplishing what it sets out to do. Games, movies and even paintings work best when they create any strong emotion and force us to face our own personal limits. I can see myself being blasé about the killing of a Steve Jobs analog for the same reason as Greg found it distasteful. Lack of agency, motivation or understanding beyond a shallow thrill. It's a big like comparing Bad Boys 2 to Narc. Bad Boys 2 revels in brutal cartoon violence without moral consequence. While Narc obsesses over the morality of the death of one person and the consequences of succumbing to the brutality of criminality. It's not even apples and oranges. It's fruits and vegetables and both deserve to exist.

 

[silasbufu]

I like games with awesome story writing and well made relatable characters.
And then there are games like GTA, where I just don't care.
It's just an age thing...that's your problem.
Because this is a GTA game and you are complaining about moral issues and other SERIOUS topics.
I personally still find amusement in running old ladies over with a tank in my GTA games, without any reason at all. The main plot missions were something I would do after alot of time spending on crime sprees and other shenanigans.
Because fuck you, game.

Also, I seriously think games like GTA , SAINTS ROW , POSTAL etc do not need reviews..at least not from professional, serious people, like yourself.

 

[Mutant1988]

I think the intent is to leave your moral values on the shelf and simply indulge yourself. The motivation for your characters action is simply "Because they wanted to" and "because they can", and perhaps your escapism in this case is simply adopting that mindset, for the narrative as much as for the gameplay.

But from a narrative point of view, I imagine that you're supposed to be appalled by their actions, as a way to bring the message across that this kind of game is about committing crime, taking (Not earning) what you want, and that has a definite moral cost. It's about ambition unhindered by any morals.

Mind, it's still understandable that you would lose interest in the narrative when you can't see any sort of character growth or relate to any of the characters. As with most things, there's a trope for this:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DarknessInducedAudienceApathy

 

[M920CAIN]

Well, let me put it like this:
If Niko has a gun to his head he says "yes" but after the gun is pointed away and Niko goes to do what he said yes to, can't Niko just not do it?

Sure, in the rare cases that the gun is pointed solely at his head, and not at the head of his cousin.

His motivation is to get OUT of the "everybody is trying to kill me/Roman" scenario. Going back on his word would only worsen that situation.

and go to the police instead or another option?

No, because he's an illegal immigrant.

Most of these "people are trying to kill me, help" situations are "Because I/Roman did something illegal to warrant it in the first place", so going to the police would just get them arrested and possibly deported.

Plus, the police are obviously ineffectual, seeing as they never seem to thwart any crimes.

Niko is motivated mostly by money to help his family

I don't remember it like that.

I remember that he's motivated to find the guy who threw him under a bus during some kind of war.

, the only times he has a gun to his head is: when meeting Faustin although it's a saw to his head, not gun, and the second one is when Packie's friends tells him about the bank job and he has the option to either do the bank job or get killed, but from a realistic point, Niko could say yes and then just go to the police or tip the police off indirectly since he can't go to them without risk of being deported.

In the beginning of the story, Roman is under attack by people who want to break his knees for the gambling debt he owes. After they kill some boss, their bosses boss comes after them, kidnaps Roman and uses him as leverage.

Rarely is the gun ever to Niko's head himself.


And let's not even talk about "why didn't he do [real world action]" The answer is "because this is a video game". This isn't the point. The point here is that Niko had context given to his crimes by having either him or Roman threatened with death. In the cases where he wasn't threatened, his motivation was to find that guy from the war.

Precisely, it is a videogame. Same goes for GTA V and that horrible but not so horrible mission. GTA characters have a way of getting themselves into trouble either directly or indirectly and the plots are built around that. Also, they have a tendency to make decisions based on their own principles rather than morals or justice by the book, so GTA V I think still captures the formula Rockstar has used for years while not being overly violent or without motivation.

 

[Equality]

It's definitely an interesting response to a game rather than just focussing on graphics, controls, level design etc. It shows just how far gaming has progressed that it's characters and scripts which can have the biggest impact on how you feel about the game you're playing.

I eventually finished GTA 4 but found that I wasn't really bothered about Niko and was sick of his cousin - I don't buy a game to take a whining relative bowling or commute in traffic. I much preferred the "don't give a shit" over the top stuff in Saints Row 2 - it was fun rather making any pretence at being "deep" (was less impressed by SR3 and even less impressed by SR4 despite enjoying some of the references to games from the past).

This discussion about characters reminded me of one mission that stood out in San Andreas - your sister comes in complaining about the local builders calling her a hooker and what do you have to do to pass the mission? Bury the foreman alive in concrete. Despite all the rest of the killing I didn't see that calling her a hooker deserved that kind, or any kind, of death - anyway, as far as I was concerned .. she did look like a hooker. It was the only mission I had any problem with, but I did it and then completed the game. Are there missions like this coming up in GTA 5?

So far I'm only a little into the game and I've already killed a lot of police, gang members and a few pedestrians thanks to the shitty driving but haven't seen anything yet to really put me off playing it. But I agree with the main point of the review - if you hate the characters and see no reason to support their actions then .. why bother? I've seen several horror films like this. The characters can be so unpleasant that I don't care at all when they get sliced up by whoever/whatever the current monster is.

 

[Clovus]

First, I think this was a really interesting article, and, like others, I'm glad you wrote it. I'm glad that there are discussions like this about video games because video games are the world's most interesting and quickly evolving form of art.

But, I found your conclusion to be a bit odd:

I don't like to watch the news; I play games for an escape from all that shit.

Grand Theft Auto V is like watching the news. It just makes me sad.

I really hate the idea that games should be about escaping from the real world. There should always be fun, escapist games out there, but it would be a huge disservice to the form if we ignored games that made us sad by reflecting back on us the evils of the world. It sounds like GTAV is experimenting with having the player take the role of a complete psycopath. I don't see how that's a problem.

I don't get the choice thing either. If the game had consistently given you choices to avoid violence, then I can see being unhappy that choice was taken away from you. But this game has no choice mechanics. You are not the character. You are not doing these things. I think it is great for games to have choice, but it is not a requirement. All games should not be built on the same set of mechanics.

I think I would have preferred to see this editorial but seen someone else review the game. Although you wouldn't have known ahead that the violence was beyound what you wanted to deal with, you had to pretty much know that Rockstar was not going to reinvent the series in GTAV. They gave no indication that they would. They were docked points because the game didn't live up to a set of expectations that really did not make sense for the title or genre. Trying to play that off as "bad writing" isn't good enough. I mean, you pretty much went in with a bit of a bias against the game. If you've decided you can't accept being "forced" to play through gruesome, inhumane scenes, then you probably shouldn't review GTA-likes or certain types of horror. I think you should write about it though. It just seems like having the review done by someone that is interested in facing those kinds of issues in the form of a game, not someone interested in escaping from them, would be more helpful to gamers who also want that kind of experience.

 

[GodzillaGuy92]

It sounds like you blame GTA V for not spelling out that the awful characters do awful things.

But in my experience, satirical stuff usually never does that, and is all the better for it.
Good writing does let you that figure out for yourself.

If you do not like that the game acts differently than you see things, that's fine. But to criticize the game for it just seems like you haven't informed yourself about GTA.

Satire, by definition, always "does that" to at least some extent. Allowing the audience to figure out the message for themselves is one thing, but there must always be something present to let them in on the "joke," or else the joke is functionally nonexistent. Good writing is not leaving the audience dangling and grasping for meaning, but guiding them to a specific meaning in a manner that still allows them to do a sizable amount of mental work. A written work which either explains or obscures its meaning too much inexorably damages itself in the process, and is thus entirely open to criticism. Perhaps GTA V is attempting to point at its characters and say what utterly unappealing people they are, but if the only thing that such a sizable amount of players are seeing is the game sitting back on its haunches and expecting the player to go along with it and have a blast doing so, then it is a failed attempt.

 

[Frybird]

It sounds like you blame GTA V for not spelling out that the awful characters do awful things.

But in my experience, satirical stuff usually never does that, and is all the better for it.
Good writing does let you that figure out for yourself.

If you do not like that the game acts differently than you see things, that's fine. But to criticize the game for it just seems like you haven't informed yourself about GTA.

Satire, by definition, always "does that" to at least some extent. Allowing the audience to figure out the message for themselves is one thing, but there must always be something present to let them in on the "joke," or else the joke is functionally nonexistent.

I cannot possibly imagine that GTA has nothing to "let them in on the joke"...they basically would have to cut out stuff shown in the trailers and TV Spots for this to be true.

Good writing is not leaving the audience dangling and grasping for meaning, but guiding them to a specific meaning in a manner that still allows them to do a sizable amount of mental work. A written work which either explains or obscures its meaning too much inexorably damages itself in the process, and is thus entirely open to criticism

I'd agree, but the problem for me is, both the Review and the Editorial fail to comment on that. It just scolds the game for giving the characters insufficient motivations (despite pointing out that they are driven by "malaise, greed and psychosis", wich usually is a sufficient motivation even in real life) and is sad about a darkly satirical game about crime and the shallowest of american lifestyles because these things are dark and sad.

Perhaps GTA V is attempting to point at its characters and say what utterly unappealing people they are, but if the only thing that such a sizable amount of players are seeing is the game sitting back on its haunches and expecting the player to go along with it and have a blast doing so, then it is a failed attempt.

I don't know, many people fail to see the satirical elements of "Robocop" and "Starship Troopers", but i wouldn't dare to call one or both a "failed attempt" (even though there are worlds between the former and the latter).

 

[saltyanon]

Great article. I got the sense of this article from the review and glad to see it fully fleshed out.

Morally reprehensible characters are fine if they are well written and engaging characters. Tommy V and CJ for instance in the GTA series.

Great read Greg and cheers.

Ah, so this explains why the common crook or even terrorists, are reviled and easy to hate, while similar assholes like the Kray twins, Al Capone,and other criminals are found fascinating, even sometimes regarded as "celebrities" or "cool".

You know what, it's good that Rockstar made assholes unlikable. They should be. People shouldn't like these characters, much in the same way people don't like the common crook. A crook is a crook. It's naive, simple, black-and-white-idealistic but hey, why the hell should anyone like a crook?

I can certainly imagine a player playing through that mission who might laugh or cheer when the guy's head exploded. That's not me...
Read more at http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/10604-Grand-Theft-Auto-5-Made-Me-Sad.2#Ey7DMGjtoElask7c.99

But it IS you! Or was, at least. It was you when you were running over those hapless pedestrians, shooting bystanders and what-not. I can't wrap around how being duped to do horrible things is worse than doing horrible things willingly. I'd argue that doing horrible things willingly is much, much worse.

Wait, doing horrible things to people and having a blast while at it, that sounds like Trevor.

 

[Calabi]

I think this game is a reaction to the criticism of their games in the past especially the so called cognitive disson... whatever.

Who else could do the things the player does except for psychotic evil crazy people. They've now made those characters, they havent tried to jusify things. Which in my opinion is worse. Good people justifying bad things you end up with alot worse happening.

The whole world of GTA are sort of this nihilistic social commentary nightmare world, where everyone is an arsehole or crazy. You dont really feel bad about doing anything in it because everyones bad(well I dont). Its roleplay not real.

I cant wait to play it.

 

[saltyanon]

I think this game is a reaction to the criticism of their games in the past especially the so called cognitive disson... whatever.

I think you're referring to "Ludonarrative Dissonance".

 

[Extragorey]

It sounds perfectly true to the heritage of GTA, Greg. My memories of playing the first GTA at the age of 12 include getting missions over the phone to run over 20 pedestrians in under a minute, for absolutely no reason at all than getting paid for it.

So you believe that because GTA V is true to its roots, it's a respectable game?

I think the video game industry has come a long way since the days of GTA 1 and 2... And I certainly wouldn't want every game to take after the first entry in the franchise.

 

[Izanagi009_v1legacy]

Great article, Greg. What I'm getting from you is the sense that Rockstar have moved on from making games that parody society in the traditional sense of the word 'parody', i.e. by making you laugh at absurd characterisations because you can see the links to reality; and are now making games under the postmodern understanding of 'parody', where parody and irony in general need not require any attempt to humour the audience, only to reference something.

This, btw, is a problem not just for GTA V but with a number of different forms of media, particularly literature. As a PhD student in English Literature I find postmodernist literature and criticism the laziest, sloppiest form of theory in existence. 'Cleverness' is continually misconstrued as the ability to cram a thousand references into a text, and your own credibility as a critic hinges on whether or not you get them all. There's no attempt to invoke real humour, only to sneer at everything.

The GTA3 era games were true to the original concept of parody. This was evident not only in background details like the radio stations and pop culture references, but in the overall story and the characters you played. Tommy Vercetti and CJ played straight man to hundreds of caricatures they encountered throughout the story, making you feel like an agent in an absurd comedy. This sense of humour is what made the gratuitous violence tolerable, in the same way that it works in a Tarantino film. Against the backdrop of that humour, you occasionally can look at something and shake your head at how close it comes to the reality of society.

For me, GTA IV wasn't as good because it went in the other way. It tried so hard to make social commentary that it was seemingly afraid that using humour would invalidate its irony cred. Everything was too realistic to be taken as a caricature, and every violent act just made me less interested in the game as a whole. It's a shame that GTA V has gone down the same path.

Just out of question, what do you see Saint's row as? Because It had split off from GTA's seriousness after the first game and became an extended reference-fest full of crazy for the sake of crazy and nothing else.

I can agree that It is lazy to an extent based on your definition but I can't deny that I laughed

 

[RJ 17]

I don't begrudge reviewers for giving games "bad" scores. That's no different than saying "You don't like what I like therefor you're stupid!" I just think you're taking the over-the-top violence and bad characters a bit too..."personally"? "Seriously"? Not sure what word I want to use there. My point is that when you look at the past GTA games ALL the characters have been despicable people, with the exception, perhaps, of Niko who - at least to my memory - was the only one who went to the city the game takes place in specifically because he just wanted to start over with a normal life but fate sucks him back into a nasty world of crime and violence.

For full disclosure, I'll admit that I haven't yet played GTA V yet so I haven't seen just how over-the-top the characters are. But I just have to wonder if Greg would have liked this game better were it still 2001 and he were still in his early 20's. Everything that I've heard in his review (and now this editorial) along with word-of-mouth from friends seems to imply that this is just par for the course in terms of a new GTA game. Same kinda stuff as all the other games, just amped up a notch as each new incarnation of the game has done before to differentiate itself from the previous titles.