Grand Theft Auto 5 Made Me Sad.

[lacktheknack]

Good god. You people.

Video games are art. Video games are serious. Video games aren't just for kids, guiz. What's this? A video game that isn't happy and perfect? Violence that's horrific? Something that makes me morally uncomfortable? But I just want video games! *sadface and crying*

I can't even take this editorial seriously.

"It's just a game" is EXACTLY the same argument that people were initially trying to use.

Fascinating how the exact same thing is being said to attack someone in two entirely opposite ways. That's generally the first sign that an argument has been simplified to the point of uselessness.

...And that's exactly what you did! You didn't even address the key aspect, "I want choice", that the entire editorial is based on, because it didn't fit your easy-to-attack simplification! There should be a word for that.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

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.

I don't like the series. Greg does though, and he argued that because GTA3 gave you a reason for your actions besides materialistic greed, it was superior. I was just pointing out how it's not so clear cut.

 

[Psychobabble]

Aw dang it! Greg! And here with your GTA5 review I thought you had ascended into the ranks of the enlightened, and would become another The Avengers-like champion fighting against the existence of these murder simulators.

But no, it turns out you, quite rationally, just don't care for a game to cram their half-baked narrative down your throat and let game play or what the game player might want to do go hang. As once again we have yet another game where the story writers with their "up their own rectum" pretentiousness and wanna-be Hollywood script writing, manage to annoy the player even in the parts of the game where the narrative isn't. Or at least ruin the parts that are fun when the player gets dragged back into the soul crushing evil parts of the game's story where they are left without choice, except to soldier on or stop playing.

I'm so dissapointed in you right now. And you hear that? That's the sound of Piers Morgan crying when he reads this. I HOPE YOU CAN LIVE WITH YOURSELF!

 

[Matthi205]

Won't be a GTA game without being flawed in a big way, wouldn't it? Personally I wish Rockstar had gone all the way with the Stock market concept.

Yea, from the videos I've seen there aren't any stock options you can buy (presumably because you could make in-game cash really fast that way, but still).

Characters being flawed is actually pretty good.
You didn't approve of how the characters acted and how they reacted to certain stimuli, as well as the fact that the player had almost no choice in the matter. I see why. But the whole point of Trevor is to show that he's a psychopath in the best possible way - which would be exactly the scenes you described.

 

[IronMit]

I'm can't agree or disagree because I have not played the game yet. You do make some compelling arguments but one of them is hugely flawed.

Godfather, breaking bad, red dead redemption are good because family & revenge motivators? And everything else is inferior by default?
What about Scarface, Goodfellas & American psycho. How about buying into the world of Joel in TLOU?

GTA V wasn't painful for you because the characters are motivated by stuff you don't empathise with/appreciate/understand in the real world, it sounds like it's because the game could not make you empathise with them in the game world and their actions don't seem logical given the narrative set.

 

[TiberiusEsuriens]

I'm having this problem with modern games, too. Everyone is jumping on the 'gritty realism' band wagon. I play games to have fun and escape from shitty real world events, not to relive them.

A piece of art can evoke all kinds of emotions. It doesn't have to be all happy-go-lucky all the time - as I mentioned I enjoy stories like Red Dead Redemption, The Godfather and Breaking Bad. But for a game that you could spend hundreds of hours playing, there needs to be variety

Games like Spec Ops work because they are shorter and have clear purpose. It wasn't the gameplay, it was how the gameplay worked in with the slick narrative. Most people comment that after the 15 hour game they had strong emotional reactions and in general just felt like crap for a decent time afterwards. Trying to create that feeling in a game people are expected to put hundreds of hours into is the worst idea I can think of. It's a game designed around criminal violence and it's fine for characterization and story to make them just plain bad people, but as a player I need some breathing room.

 

[Goliath100]

Won't be a GTA game without being flawed in a big way, wouldn't it? Personally I wish Rockstar had gone all the way with the Stock market concept.

Yea, from the videos I've seen there aren't any stock options you can buy (presumably because you could make in-game cash really fast that way, but still).

Characters being flawed is actually pretty good.
You didn't approve of how the characters acted and how they reacted to certain stimuli, as well as the fact that the player had almost no choice in the matter. I see why. But the whole point of Trevor is to show that he's a psychopath in the best possible way - which would be exactly the scenes you described.

(Full disclosure, I'm PC, there may be some factual mistake). Took me some time to find it, but there is 2 stock markets and a real estate market in game. Real estate market and one of the stack markets are basic gambeling, the other is effected by in-game events. This should explain it:
http://www.psu.com/a021018/Top-5-ways-to-make-money-on-the-GTA-V-stock-market

My point is that the game itself is flawed.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm in my mid-40s, so I can empathize perfectly well with the mid-life crisis motivation.

But that doesn't mean I'm about to go out, put a gun to someone's head, and make them drive through the front window of an auto dealership just because it's cheaper than paying a therapist.

I got crap in high school for wearing a trench coat. That doesn't mean I went and shot up the place.

See, just because whatshisname isn't exactly like you doesn't mean that his characterisation is wrong, just like the fact that I didn't shoot up schools doesn't mean Klebold and Harris didn't shoot up Columbine. It just means I'm not a psychopath.

It should be no secret that different people handle events differently. I'm not saying GTA V is realistic, but that element certainly does not make it unrealistic.

 

[IronMit]

GTA V wasn't painful for you because the characters are motivated by stuff you don't empathise with/appreciate/understand in the real world...

I'm in my mid-40s, so I can empathize perfectly well with the mid-life crisis motivation.

But that doesn't mean I'm about to go out, put a gun to someone's head, and make them drive through the front window of an auto dealership just because it's cheaper than paying a therapist.

I didn't mean emphasise with the plight of mid life crisis or revenge etc I meant emphasise with/understand every decision the protagonist makes.

I could say I'm a Cuban immigrant to America- that doesn't mean I'm going to start a criminal empire.(scarface)
Or I have cancer and am a chemistry teacher so I will definitely make Meth now.

What makes these stories so good is not the 'has cancer/revenge' angle but exactly how everything plays out. The character's have to behave in a logical way when presented with certain situations/plot devices. Walter white has a motive, opportunity and skills. He ends up desperate enough to go through with it and the viewer doesn't say to himself 'I don't think his character would do that'. They can identify with him even though they would not do those same stuff in real life.

The writer of this article seems to not be able to understand why the protagonists are doing what they are doing (in GTAV), so he says it's because revenge and family are better motivators. It's not, revenge or cancer motivators don't automatically make a better story then mid-life crisis. It's the How not the Why. If people are doing stuff that doesn't make sense to their character then the story is broken.

 

[Vivi22]

and in GTA III it barely touches any sort of motivation for the main character other then money.

Maybe it's been a while since you played GTA3, but it was clearly a game about a criminal trying to find his girlfriend who betrayed him and shoots him, and left him to die/get caught by the cops after a bank heist. Mind you, there's not a whole lot of characterization for him after that since he's a silent protagonist, but they very clearly set up his motivation from the beginning and carry it straight through to the end where he kills her.

 

[Right E O]

I mean, GTA has always been closer to South Park than any gangster movie. Hell, the scene with the fake Steve Jobs having his head exploded sounds like something out of South Park.

I have seen the first hour or two of story through a lets play and I was in love with it. The scene described doesn't really disturb me and the game will have to go to some great lengths to lose my interest. The review score is only notable because the author realized that a seven out of ten is actually more than enough to turn some heads on a game like this.

Also, I love all of the sudden love for past GTA stories all of a sudden. I guarantee you could find an article just like this that came out when a new GTA is published, and all of them will have made logical true points. The endstory is that those games sold like gangbusters and so will this one.

 

[Something Amyss]

So you disagree with Greg's review and feel that the characters in GTA V are well-written, just off-stream?

Please don't go assuming that "because reasoning is flawed" translates to "I believe the polar opposite."

 

[josemlopes]

and in GTA III it barely touches any sort of motivation for the main character other then money.

Maybe it's been a while since you played GTA3, but it was clearly a game about a criminal trying to find his girlfriend who betrayed him and shoots him, and left him to die/get caught by the cops after a bank heist. Mind you, there's not a whole lot of characterization for him after that since he's a silent protagonist, but they very clearly set up his motivation from the beginning and carry it straight through to the end where he kills her.

I remember the betrayal at the beginning and then he just started to climb up the latter again doing jobs for whoever offered money, never really with the intention of revenge. Catalina does show up by coincidence at the mission where you have to steal some stuff out of a plane, she takes your stuff and later after that she kidnapps Maria.

Still, most of the game its just him doing it for the money, not for revenge. He would do all those things even if he didnt want revenge, the revenge was not the cause for the events of the game to take place but just something that served as the climax of the game to end it.

 

[Carrots_macduff]

"Trevor demands women be respected. Congratulations to Rockstar for creating a fully-realized character"

i sincerely hope this is sarcasm, demanding respect towards women is hardly a character trait in any normal case, but with trevor, where it is completely at odds with all the rest of his psycopathic tendencies, it seems pretty clear to me that this is nothing more than an idiosyncratic quirk

 

[ckam]

Good on you for standing up for yourself and expressing your own opinion on things. Well, I guess that's all I wanted to say.

 

[Raikas]

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 it's fair to point out that the random violent mission isn't new to the series given that the editorial seemed to be suggesting that it was a change. That has nothing to do with whether the game is "respectable" or not.


I agree that it's not a new turn for the games. Personally, I'm not shy about enjoying some fictional violence, but honestly the GTA series has always made me a little uncomfortable when I've played them (before anyone asks why I don't just avoid them: I don't buy the games myself, but I was given the first two as gifts and my brother-in-law is a fan of the series so I've seen him play the more recent ones).

Either way, I do think it's interesting to read about someone who has shifted from that fan space into the discomfort space and I appreciate that Tito decided to expand on his review.

 

[debtcollector]

I read the spoiler part of the text now.

How the hell is that mission TERRORISM? Do you know what this word means, author? Terrorism is inducing fear in the general populace. In fact, terrorists generally not only have their reasons for doing what they do, they are also happy to tell the world about it

What is described here is plain assassination. I.e. an act meant to get someone killed, get rid of an uncomfortable person and that's it. The actual fact you're actually criticising, not knowing what's behind it, makes it anti-terrorism pretty much by default.

And now we're supposed to take your high moral criticism seriously?

So, if someone was to publicly assassinate a head of state while s/he was making an address, that wouldn't "induce fear in the general populace"? Fear is most quickly spread through the media. If it was only an assassination, why couldn't Michael kill not-Steve Jobs while infiltrating the office? Blowing a guy's head off without warning in front of millions of people on live television is not a simple assassination. It is a production calculated to deliver the maximum amount of bloody spectacle to the greatest amount of people possible. That's terrorism in any book.

Also, you should probably check what "anti-terrorism" means, because I don't think public executions generally factor into it.