Grand Theft Auto 5 Made Me Sad.

[GonzoGamer]

It's funny because I understand. I think I need at least one character I can like in a movie or tv show: one of the reasons I could never get into Breaking Bad.
But I don't find that necessary in a game. I still don't expect much of a story or characters you can feel for in games. Shallow characters and contrived missions are what's always made up GTA games; even gta4 as much as everyone wouldn't like to admit it.

I've "grown up" and had kids since I first played gta too, I just never expected GTA to grow up too.

Anyway, I'm glad that there's one reviewer who at least isn't overrating it. I prefer a review to underrate than overrate a game.

 

[Ushiromiya Battler]

First of all, you've gotten old, you said so yourself. You aren't the intended audience anymore.
Even so, it still doesn't make your review less important, I'm actually more miffed about the whole DA2 thing.

You've given the people that generally don't like GTA games another reason to stay away and you've given people that aren't that up to mindless murder anymore a reason to stay away.

Good for you.

Now, to what I find bloody hilarious. People criticizing story in a fucking GTA game. I simply laughed through your whole review and I don't even like the games. But it's so silly.
And it sounds like the perfect GTA game, where they don't try to justify the shit you do. God job R*.

Anyways, magnificent review.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

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

I see Saints Row's narrative as fairly infantile, to be honest. The actual gameplay is pretty good and true to the original GTA open world philosophy, but the story is a juvenile power fantasy rounded out with spurious pop culture references. I did laugh at moments, but it was less of an intelligent satire and more of a childish parody.

There are a couple of moments in Saints Row II where characters die, and the appeal to pathos was so jarringly out of place with the gratuitous violence meted out to other characters that I started skipping all the cutscenes because the narrative was lost on me.

 

[Reincarnatedwolfgod]

Dude wrting this article, let me give you some examples:
1. In Skyrim you can sacrifice a best friend (follower) for a Daedra named Boethiah in order to get some piece of armor

how exactly is that a bad thing?
most of the time the death of a followers is just an inconvenience and even when alive there still are an inconvenience who blocks doors. most follower are pack mules with little to no back story. I once once killed a follower for being annoying. At least sacrificing a pack mule for armor is useful as opposed to killing one for being annoying. The armor even if it's not used is still worth more then the life of one follower.
That says something about the writing in skyrim.

 

[F-I-D-O]

People, this reviewer is in his mid thirties with a kid and a family.

He also knows very little about the Elder Scrolls series, even though he did an unboxing where he claimed he was a huge fan and couldn't even remember Cyrodill as being the home of the imperials. Sorry but he's not that intelligent and his point here isn't that well argued.

He just doesnt like the game because hes in a new stage of his life and he's trying to make a point for HIMSELFand his family, not for gamers.

Spoiler: Direct response to Jiveturkey's comments

First off, his family has nothing to do with this. Don't bring in someone's relations to undermine their argument, when you come up with no contradictory evidence or claims. Yes, a human being got married and had children. So what? Most reviews in large publications have families, and are in their late twenties to early thirties. It's a moot point, and just low class to drag family into a discussion. Have an issue with the reviewer, use that. Their external life has nothing to do with how they express their views.

Second: Since when did remembering random facts about a series a requirement for fandom? I don't expect someone to know the Valar from Lord of the Rings or, hell, even know who Tom Bombadil is at this point. If someone claims to be a LotR fan, I don't demand them to know where Frodo was stabbed by a Ringwraith. Extending your statement, that's quite the logic jump from "doesn't know a fact about the extended lore in a game" to "not being intelligent." A fan is anyone who is passionate about something. Greg Tito can be incredibly passionate about TES and love the games to death, and not knowing the origin of the Imperials doesn't matter, especially considering that Cyrodill hasn't been relevant in video games for the last seven years, and won't be until TSO comes out. Even if he just got into TES with Skyrim (which I doubt), then what's the big fucking deal? A fan is a fan, no matter when they discover the object.


Third: Yep, people go through transnational stages in life. Point?
The core thing is, he doesn't care about the violence so much. He said in the article that he enjoys running around in the city causing chaos. Yet, seeing pedestrians bounce off a car while driving to a destination is much more comical than blowing up someone's head in graphic detail. And then having the camera zoom in on it.

Spoiler: Comparisons to Spec Ops/SRIV

Now, I loved Spec Ops: The line, and at this point everyone knows about the white phosphorus scene. That game set up the scenario with meaningful context, and then presented the player with a choice as his squadmates openly acknowledge it as the only option, but a terrible one. The important thing to note is the character already made his choice. The player is allowed to either turn off the game, or continue going. Then, it slams the players face into the mess that was created, and at other moments continues to point out the ethical problems with modern military shooters.

From what I can tell, GTA V doesn't do that. It expects you to dance around with it as heads are exploded, faces stomped in, and people tortured. And then laugh. At the same time, it expects you to pay attention to the very realistic surroundings and look at the well done modern life satire. The juxtaposition that is created, however, can be rather off putting. Saints Row IV on the other hand, takes violence to a cartoonish extreme and makes fun of life by using caricatures and elaborate jokes, similar to a political cartoon from the 80s, or a Loony Toons episode. Also, the stylized graphics help separate between reality and the game.

If a game makes the player uncomfortable, makes the player think about their actions, not in an "Oh god" why but in a "Why did I just do that,that's not what I wanted" way, there's a problem. Especially in a game that supposedly gives so much player agency as GTA V. If the player doesn't feel like they have control, doesn't feel the character's actions are justified, and doesn't feel they are enjoying it, why rate it higher than games the player finds more fun?

Final Point/TL;DR
Yes, he's trying to make his point. He's a reviewer. Greg Tito gets paid to make his SUBJECTIVE OPINION known.
And as someone who cares about the industry, he asks why we don't ask for proper motivations. Why it's too much to want for fully developed characters from the company that gave us John Marston, and toted it's characters in every trailer. Since when is being "the bad guy" an excuse to skip out on characterization? Why must players be forced to commit heinous crimes, when every other aspect of the game promotes choice? Why is controversy included simply for the sake of it?

Do I feel he knocked off too much for a narrative (which most people won't finish, as they focus on free roaming and online) he didn't personally ethically agree with? Yeah, especially when he said the rest of the game played well (except maybe for the auto aim). However, the fact that he is so willing to stand by his points and defend them is something to at least be admired, and not simply dismissed as a result of him having a family.

 

[MarsProbe]

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.

I wonder, when did gamers (seemingly) become such pussies? Earlier in the year we had people complaining about the violence in Bioshock Infinite because violence-in-an-FPS someone call the cops! And now people crying because the characters in GTAV are morally reprehensible? Suck it up, people. Good job on not finishing that cognitive youknowwhat phrase, a turn or phrase that needs to taken out back and shot if ever there was one.

 

[whami]

Wow just wow. And this guy "Greg Tito" is serious about calling himself a games critic?
Giving GTA 5 a 70/100 because the characters are "horible persons" is rediculous. While this same person gave Splinter Cell Conviction ( a game in which you interrogate people with torture) a 100/100. Well, that's whay we call a hypocrit. And game critics are supposed to comment on a game in an as objective way as possible. That's who so many critics give points for graphics quality, then storyline etc and combine those for the final score.

And it's a freaking game! "Oh no, I'm gonna play a terrible person". Are you seriously kidding me? In so many games you can be a terrible person.

And also gives Saints Row 4 a 100/100. A game in which the characters are at least as "horrible persons" as the characters in GTA 5. Not to mention that GTA was the huge inspiration for SR in the first place. GTA created the genre. In SR killing people is portrayed as normal, necessary, expendible, etc. While in GTA you always get the message that doing that is wrong, like police chasing you after killing somebody. In SR you go kill people in gameshow like events & for movies in which they kill real people to "make it realistic".

I can't take this review serious, not even the least. Did this guy receive money for braking down GTA or does he get money to give other games a 100? That's the only thing I can think of when somebody gives GTA 5 a 70 for "terrible persons" while at the same time giving 100 to a game with torture and 100 to a game which glorifies violence even a lot more than GTA does.

(Or is this reply now going to get censored away? I've heard that's a common practice here.)

 

[carnex]

All I can say is that this new wave of social justice makes me sick. For all reviewers I would sugest to go an take a look at history of Hollywood and how the Hays Code got introduced.

Then go an see movies like "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" and "Lock, Stock and two smoking barrels" to see how several totally morally bankrupt characters make good story.

Now, I'm a PC gamer so GTA5 is a long wait for me, but given the past GTA games, I fully expected horrible human beings as main, and really all character in games. They never did have redeeming features worth mentioning. I actually found idea that your team had full blown psychopath or sociopath on refreshing since it's one of the rare times when game is honest about character.

I'm not trying to change the game or condemn it. I think it has a right to exist just like anything else. I just didn't think it was as good or entertaining (story/character wise) than ANYTHING on offer in The Good the Bad and the Ugly, and Lock Stock. Shit, Reservoir Dogs is one of my favorite films. But even that had threads of character you could sympathize with and the shocking scenes were played bursting with context and drama instead of just being shocking.

If the Trevor scenes or the CEO thing I mentioned played out half as well as Mr. Blonde cutting off the cop's ear, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Greg

That my be, but the way you presented things smells squarely of your personal preference rather then some objective truth. And even that is valid criticism IF you state it's someting that you can se personally bugging you.

On the other hand, all I can deduce from your text is that we are taking an untouched and concentrated view of few really deplorable human beings. CEO thing makes perfect sense. You are executor, a technician. There is no need for you do know what is the greater picture. You get the job and you do it. To compare it to Vice City since you invoke it repeatedly, there you get to kill a bunch of construction workers. It's a mission you have no choice about. Same with bunch of Chinese laundry workers. And the fact that it's never mentioned again? In Vice City you slaughter army unit in the middle of city and steal a tank in plain sight of everyone else and that is not mentioned again. And yet you praise that game.

As for the rest, every character in every GTA game is stereotype turned up to at least 25 on 1-10 scale realizing 250% of it's potential. That's why the game is so compeling to people. No one was ever spared. Remember redneck that was drinking Battery Acid, or rock stars that cheered you on while you ran over people? That too is Vice City. And that teen star sex tape is something I really love about Rockstar even if I don't like all their games. After Hot Coffee they decided to give middle finger to moral outrage, just as an artist should do if he/she feels compelled.

In the end, your complaints are perfectly valid from a personal standpoint if you said that those things are problematic to you. Say I'm 35, married and with children therefore i don't have same preferences. Your article comes off as "I'm 35 therefore I know better"

I'm not trying to shame you or anything like that. i'm just trying to point out inconsitancies and problems with how your article came through. At wery least how it came through to me. GTA was always about doing iredimable things with not knowing full spectrum of conseqences. Somehow you text reminds me of Tommy's mom in Vice City and that finally made me smile.

 

[GodzillaGuy92]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf38HiYPMiI
You just need to look at the "Michael" and the "Trevor" Part, and the way thier statements cut to other footage, no one can tell me that this isn't highly sarcastic to the point of being tongue-in-cheek.

Ah, these I've seen. I'm not sure where the sarcasm lies in Trevor's segment, given that the trailer plays his psychopathy pretty straightfaced; the problem lies in whether we're supposed to find him abhorrent for this or we're instead meant to perceive it as endearing in a backwards sort of way. The tone of the trailer seems to suggest the latter, what with the combination of the background music and the multitude of clips depicting Trevor doing a lot of fun-looking things such as bailing out of a car a split-second before it collides with a train. If that is the case, the game wants us to like Trevor's psychopathy when the player is instead put off by it, in which case the characterization is unsuccessful in what response it's attempting to evoke.

Michael's trailer is a bit more layered, with numerous instances of ironic juxtaposition much as you've described. But again, the tone of the trailer doesn't point to an intended audience reaction of disgust. It shows him doing bad things, sure, but it also goes out of its way to provide relatable reasons for this that are clearly intended to make you feel sympathy towards him. One of the very first images in the trailer is Michael wearily taking a drink as his son screams at him from across the house. Little more than ten seconds later, said son selfishly complains about having to support his father through his midlife crisis as Michael looks on with a pained facial expression. Not to mention the fact that his wife is plainly cheating on him. "I'm rich, I'm miserable! I'm pretty average for this town," Michael says. Those lines encapsulate his plight, and it's not a plight that suggests you're supposed to hate him - and, indeed, the trailer doesn't make you hate him because the overbearing presence of the life he's suffered through up to this point renders the accompanying scenes of punching and bank heists an attractive, liberating quality. It's a great trailer for a game in which you're meant to have fun being a criminal; it's extremely dissonant, on the other hand, for a game that ends up making the player feel guilty about those actions.

Other than that, outside the Trailers, it's GTA, you buy guns at stores called "Ammu-Nation", the main News Network is again called "Weazel News", thier Facebook is called "LifeInvader"....

And that's what I was talking about when I pointed out the difference between the social satire of Starship Troopers and that of GTA V. In the former, the characters support the clearly-evil government, thereby communicating to the audience that you're meant to dislike them despite their being the protagonists. For GTA V's satire to be comparable, the protagonists would have to be Ammu-Nation spokesmen, Weazel newscasters, Lifeinvader employees, etc. Instead, they turn to crime to break out of that society, which is something the audience naturally roots for, and this in turn suggests that you're supposed to view their actions and behavior as justified (as is the case with the Michael trailer). If, instead, the characters take their unlawful lifestyles too far in the player's eyes and the story does nothing to indicate a stance that they have become as bad as, or worse than, the society they're rebelling against in the process, then it's made them unsympathetic in a way that counteracts what the story is trying to accomplish and leaves the player feeling sullied by the whole thing.

Everything in the Article seems to point out exactly that the characters are unlikeable by design. It's just that the game (luckily) doesn't seem to draw stink-lines or devil horns on them.

One of wich is a rich guy with a midlife crisis and another one a psychopathic red-neck.....i really don't understand how one can misunderstand that those characters as "justified" in thier actions even if the game plays out from thier perspecive, where of course they probably do not wallow in self-loathing over everything they do.
Again, look at things like "Arrested Development", where almost all characters are horrible people acting selfish, annoying and dumb, and it does not need the narrator making statements about how horrible these characters are because it's pretty self-evident.

If your characters are unlikable, be they the antagonists or the protagonists, then drawing devil horns is a necessity - it's just that, in a satire, the devil horns should ideally be small enough that the audience has to do a bit of work to find them. Pointing out the depravity of your own characters in no way precludes skillful, subtle storytelling, as long as the act of pointing it out is done skillfully and subtly. Not bothering to point it out in the first place is no substitute for this, because if you don't, the audience will assume that the story is trying to draw halos over the characters' heads instead.

 

[wartuner]

Woo, I have a profile on here. Don't even remember making an account on here. Anyway, I'll be copy & pasting whats I wrote on reddit to this thread, because it seems that the writer needs to replay a few games to see how things normally work. Also, I find it hard to believe that this wasn't just done to gain views by creating controversy. Anyway, he's the post:

"SMH.... That just reads like he forgot how every other Rockstar game was. Especially the part where he mention how RDR & VC has reasons for their protagonists to do bad things. Vercetti did it for money and later to take over the crime world there. For Marston, he was a criminal given another chance if he rounded up his old gang-mates, and he only reluctantly went along with it bitching and screaming at everyone the entire time. Neither of them had any reason to do the bad things, they did them because they wanted to.

And for all his griping about the missions like the lifehacker and torture, you go through 3 or 4 of those every game. In GTA3 you started a gang war by killing the leader of a gang YOU were a part of just so that you'd become rich from it. In SA there were tons of missons were CJ would be called up telling him about the horrible things that were able to happen because of what he did. And in GTA4 you kill the best friend of one of the main characters of the DLC, the whole diamonds/impossible trinity storyline is everyone doing terrible, terrible things just so that they can get a hold of the diamonds and become filthy rich. There is literally nothing new in a mission screwing you over by having the guy you're working for plan something horrible.

What has basically happened is that now the writer has grown up he doesn't like these types of games anymore, he doesn't want to play a gta-type game. He's gripes could fit any of the games in series, and instead he'd rather look through rose tinted glases at the past games and pretend that it's all gone down hill with GTA5. It hasn't, it's still the same thing. The only thing that's changed is him.

TL;DR: Greg needs to go back and reply the old games, go "oh my god, that's horrible!" at the dozens of bad things the games force you to do, and then review gta5."

Edit: Fixed up a few typos and stuff. Also, I'd like to say it again. Greg, the game hasn't changed at all, it's just that you've gotten older and gone away from things like this.

 

[Don_Ramon]

I was hyped as hell to play GTA V but after I read what you wrote, maybe I'll wait some more.
From what it seems , V suffers from the same problems of Ballad of Gay Tony.
In TBGOT everyone was an ass and hated each other, even Luis' mother bullied him. You could hang out only with your cousins and all they said was that you were a "dumb fagg*t". After the middle of the game I just started skipping all the cutscenes because I couldn't take it anymore.

 

[martyrdrebel27]

So, your problem seems to be that the narrative isn't happy puppy rainbows or whatever. The narrative was sad, and that's bad? Every book, movie, play or videogame has a story to tell. Some are sad, some are happy, some are violent. But its all art. You totally missed... Something here. Obviously "the point" for one, but something else entirely. The V story is so multilayered... Eh, screw this. I can't change a mind that claims it was "sickened" by one of gamings best narratives to date.

 

[Something Amyss]

I did no such thing. Which is why I asked you a question. Nice avoidance though.

You phrased it in such a way that presupposes the answer. But then, I answered your question. You just didn't like the answer.

I suppose I should have known you weren't serious the second you phrased it that way. But now I know.

 

[skatch13]

If the Trevor scenes or the CEO thing I mentioned played out half as well as Mr. Blonde cutting off the cop's ear, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Greg

As i read the review and this article I was trying to come to grips with your problems with the main characters when this very movie came to mind.

None of the characters in Reservoir Dogs is portrayed as anything but a stone cold killers. With nothing redeemable about them except for Mr White's loyalty to his fellow gangster. Even the cop kills a lady once he has been shot, making his moral transformation into the criminal he has emulated complete.

Mr Blond tortures the cop for NO REASON at all. None, he says so himself in one great line "Listen kid, I'm not gonna bulls**t you, all right? I don't give a good f**k what you know, or don't know, but I'm gonna torture you anyway, regardless. Not to get information. It's amusing, to me, to torture a cop. You can say anything you want cause I've heard it all before. All you can do is pray for a quick death, which you ain't gonna get."

There is nothing, and a i repeat nothing to be gained from this. He will not get any useable information. It is clear, and simple pleasure.

I enjoy the scene it is beautifully written. Madsen plays a fantastic psychopath. It is however gratuitous violence pure and simple.

I would like to know is it the interactiveness of GTAV that makes you shy away? Is that why it wasn't handled well? What makes watching the violence better than experiencing it digitally?

 

[skywolfblue]

Good then that murdering a fictional character in a fictional world is so far removed from contemplating actual murder as you could possibly get.

And I would argue that without consequence (As in, real objective consequence, not just subjective), everyone would do horrible things because then those things wouldn't be horrible things.

You seem to believe that morals are an incorruptible truth, as opposed to just being our means to co-exist and grow as a group of living, thinking individuals.

I'm fine with setting aside my moral sensibilities when doing so in no way affects my ability to co-exist peacefully with other humans.

There is more to character/morality then mere co-existance.

Basically - What I do with fictional characters have no bearing on what I do towards actual real people, so I have a freedom that I do not have in reality. So then why do I use this freedom to perform acts that would be horrible in reality? Simple: Out of curiosity and visceral thrill.

I hope that one day you will feel otherwise. Escapism also offers us the chance to be better then we normally are, to make heroic sacrifices we wouldn't ordinarily do. We need not immerse ourselves in humanity's darker side.

 

[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.

Um. I didn't say it was just a game. That's the opposite of my argument. Did you read at all?

Yes, I did. I, however, did NOT claim that you said it was "just a game". Did YOU read at all?

You claimed that he doesn't like it because he just wanted a fun, unthreatening game. In the other thread, people were attacking him BECAUSE it's "just a fun game". Clearly, there's something wrong here, and I don't think it's Greg Tito.

Now, I pointed out that you constructed a simplification of his argument and attacked it, leaving out his entire damn point of not having a choice in how awful of a person he was (man, I REALLY wish there was a common, well-known word for that). Are you going to address that, or will you just quote me with a quarter-reply over and over and hope I go away?

I don't care what other people were attacking him for and it's not relevant to what I said in the slightest, no matter how hard you try to make it. You can't use someone else's argument as a launching point for mine. Either try again using actual logic, or stop pretending to be making a real point.

I'm using your complete disconnect with what people were whinging about in the other thread to draw attention to your incredibly obvious strawman (there, I said it). For the third time, you refuse to address the actual point of the article of Greg Tito not having any choice in whether or not he gets to do some of the more graphically awful things. You're ignoring them so you can draw him up as a spineless whiner who hates being challenged by gaming, which you in turn can have a big old laugh at.

Yes, you are. It's completely undeniable. Go read your first post.

And it's utterly completely false, as he successfully pointed out what was bothering him and successfully explained how GTA V could have avoided it. That's not something one does upon having a temper tantrum that their game was too emotionally challenging for them.

Now, FOR THE THIRD TIME, will you or will you not address your massive fallacy, or are you going to hone in on a grammatical error or something and try to dismiss me entirely without having to be challenged on your statements? If it's the second one, please don't respond.