Jimquisition: Will Grand Theft Auto V Have No Balls?

[ACman]

Point is, if you want to play GTA IV without going out with Niko's friends, then play it without going out with his friends. It's very rarely forced upon you.

Well apart from taking them out for their witty repatie I didn't do it for any gameplay value. The stories told through the dialogue during these tasks was fairly interesting but it was kind of galling to have to go see Ricky Gervais for the tenth time.

MY point is that you could have a realistic adult narrative without wasting time on these features. Put in something fun like boat/helicopter races with Brucie, or saving your "cuzzin" from more loan sharks or strip club bouncers, or random mini bank robberies with your Irish mates, or playing backup for the Jamacians during Random drug/weapon deals.

 

[Something Amyss]

Sure, I'm glad the genre can move in both directions. But I think as long as you can go to a mission marker on a map with no idea what you're volunteering for and come out with a mission from which you cannot advance the story until you kill a dozen people, the "moral" trappings of GTA are going to remain somewhat laughable. (Yes, I know there were missions that enabled you to choose a merciful route in GTA IV, but they were far in the minority.)

Not to mention the still-existing gap between cutscenes and gameplay.

Actually, this may get worse with the hype we get from the trailer.

A lot of players actually act like sociopaths within the game. Trying to be more nuanced means you're actively betraying the narrative if you play the sandbox in a certain way. This looks like it's a guy who thought he was out and gets pulled back in. Great, except is that the kind of guy who would rob random folks on the street?

This kind of annoyed me about RDR, too. No matter your characters actions, the same chain of events happen. And that wouldn't be so bad, except you're a man seeking redemption FFS. Ignore the fact that Marston's threatening to kill people every other line of the dialogue for 3/4s the game, you can play an utterly unrelenting psychopath, murder everyone under the sun, lie cheat and steal, and still develop as a hero on a path towards redemption.

I still loved the game, mind. I still loved the story. Doesn't mean I can't see its flaws.

Saints Row 2 kind of did the opposite. You are unequivocally the bad guy, and the narrative reflects that. It at least is fairly story light, character development light, etc., but it's still sort of the same problem. Defining characters in a certain way in one part of the game and not the rest is kind of annoying.

Of course, in SR2, there isn't much you can do in the game where you'd come off as the good guy. There's plenty you can do in RDR where you come off as the bad guy, and they'll have to really pare down the GTA world if they want us to play a guy who was forced back in and not be able to completely defy the character.

Of course, they're obviously not opposed to stripping elements, so maybe that will happen. Maybe they'll go the Hideo Kojima route, so our gameplay won't ruin their narrative.

 

[shogunblade]

Would anyone have felt disappointment if Jim didn't rub the bat at the end?

OT: I'm indifferent to both games, to be honest.

I played Saints Row II and I felt an immense sense of disgust, with the only part of me enjoying that was running over people to Boy George's "Karma Chameleon" being the highlight.

I played GTA IV and had an immense sense of Boredom, the gameplay was so not my cup of tea that all it made me wish was that GTA's Vice City, San Andreas and III would get the HD Treatment.

That doesn't mean I don't enjoy those kinds of games: I enjoyed Manhunt for all the horrible violence I can do, Bully for all the silly yet horrible things I can do, Red Dead Redemption for being a desperado, and L.A. Noire for all the good things I can do.

Can't explain it, but when it's not an open world sandbox with running over people as the option, I can play it. When I am allowed to do it, I prefer not to. Strange.

Either way, great video Jim.

 

[Aureliano]

Man, I'm relieved to hear that things with outlandish dick jokes can't also be intelligent bits of satire and humor. Otherwise it might be possible for this very show to have intelligent criticism. But luckily for everyone, SR2 was clearly not thoughtful or interesting at all aside from just being wacky.

Thank God for Jim indeed. Now I can go back to playing Bach Bach Revolution on my piano with a metronome while sawing off my testicles. No fun ever needs to invade my life with all the thinking going on in it!

[F'ing /SARCASM]

No one said it can't, it certainly can. But it doesn't. SR2 is not thoughtful or intelligent. It's definitely satirical, and I guess you could think about it being sort of intelligent in that way, but there is a clear difference between how GTA 4 presents itself and how SR 2 presents itself. The Jimquisition is satirical and features dick jokes, but it can also be thoughtful and intelligent, and it does.

I don't know what boiled up all that fiery rage. He wasn't ragging on SR2 or anything.

Also, I don't want to inquire as to how and why Jim got a giant purple dildo, but I'm certainly curious.

Bit of suggestive ending bit there, Jim.

SR2 is smart in the way it constructs a coherent world out of its wacky chaos, and flawed but human characters who the player can empathize with much more than most of the game's competitors because of how much sense their decisions ultimately make in context.

My bile is because I respect Jim as a humorist and he's been severely dropping the ball this last few weeks. He's a smart guy, but without some generally funny jokes his show is getting boring.

To suggest that the attitude of SR2 is immature and something to be cast off as one gets their act together suggests he believes the same about his show. When all the zaniness is gone from the Jimquisition, I will not watch it anymore. It will simply cease to be any fun, which is the only thing I ultimately want from games and gaming news/journalism in the first place.

 

[badmunky64]

I was stopped liking gta after Vice City. So naturally I loved Saints Row when it came out.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

Great video as allways. Wont be getting gta v, but it was intresting to learn about.

Same here.

The "criminal sandbox" game has never really appealed to me. In the couple of hours I spent with GTA IV I saw the potential for me to enjoy it, though I found myself unable to connect with the story. Because the game allowed me as the player to make Nico behave like sociopath, I was unable to empathize with him when the more serious story stuff happened.

On the other hand, I loved Red Dead Redemption. One of my favorite games of all time. They toned down the player freedom just a bit and framed the story in such a way that you could play John Marston as a noble outlaw or a ruthless outlaw and it worked.

But yeah, I won't be buying GTA V. If Rockstar makes more games like Red Dead Redemption, I'll be on board.

 

[NZpablo]

You mirror my thoughts exactly Jim

BTW, Jim, you've got balls of steel

 

[42]

did anyone else think he'd end the video after he said thank god for giant purple dicks? hahahaha

OT: it was a good point. the people who are banging on about GTA being too tame forget one thing. It's the developers game. Not yours the developers. they'll make any game that they think suits both them and the product. and it'll be great. too many self entitled shits struggle to get this.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I want a GTA that has smart and deep story, a parody of the real world, but I don't want it to be at expense of fun. They mixed both elements perfectly in GTA 3 era games, especially in Vice City and San Andreas. GTA IV was a step backwards. It had the story element, but it was boring. Rockstar can make a fun and smart game. They just have to try. I have a feeling GTA V will deliver it all this time.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

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.

Do me a favor.

Set aside any possible biases or assumptions and try to imagine yourself in John Marston's situation:

You ran for years as an outlaw, but then you realized that that wasn't the life you wanted live, so you left the life and tried to live peacefully with your wife and son. Then, the government kidnaps your family and holds them hostage, saying that they'll give your family back and excuse your crimes if you hunt down some of your old gang members. You now have two options: 1) Turn yourself in and pay the consequences for your crimes, as well as abandon your family to an unknown fate. 2) Tow the line and do the fed's *****-work, as well as doing any number of other people's *****-work along the way to get to your ultimate goal: give the government what they want so you can have your family back and live the peaceful life.

When you put yourself in his situation, anything and everything that John does makes perfect sense. Can you confidently say that you would do anything different if you were in his shoes? I can't. This is what we call "empathy" my friend.

I usually don't jump into "fanboy" arguments, but you provoked me to go on the defense. If you didn't LIKE RDR or John Marston, that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their own taste. However, as an aspiring writer who majored in Creative Writing in college, I know a well-written, well-developed character when I see one, and John's one of the best.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

The only thing I'm concerned with is, while I personally enjoy that Saint's Row has been more FUN and "less serious" than GTA, that doesn't mean I want a game that is just 100% all shit and giggles. Saint's Row 2 still have a pretty interesting story, that at least was no worse than any movie starring a rap star about a gang, and some of the missions were a bit more serious. In a way it felt MORE real to me because I felt like the character had depth that wasn't obscured by all the gritty realistic boring bs in GTA IV. Having a nice diversion of doing some hit man missions just added to things in Saints Row 2... Driving around playing darts and getting constant nagging calls from Girlfriends that I wanted to shoot more than screw made that deep story with Niko Bellic more.. boring. It was like Saints Row was a high action summer blockbuster flick and GTA IV was like the "Emmy Nominated" but slower, more boring dramatic film.

 

[rangerman351]

This just made my day. Good outlook, too many people crying over this. From day one, i've suggested Saint's row and the common response is "f-off". Its always good when Jim shares a similar view with you.

 

[gphjr14]

I'll probably get both but since I found SR more fun to play than GTA I'm getting it new and will probably get GTAV when its in the $40 range. I expected a deep narrative from a game like Red Dead not something with the GTA title on it. There was plenty to do in Red Dead after the credits rolled in terms of exploring hunting dueling etc. with GTA IV I found myself on the freemode multiplayer 90% of the time. With SR I doubt I'll get bored.

 

[hooksashands]

Bonus points if they make Gilbert Gottfreid a sidekick character who you have the choice of taking onboard or murdering with zero witnesses.

 

[Enkidu88]

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.

Do me a favor.

Set aside any possible biases or assumptions and try to imagine yourself in John Marston's situation:

You ran for years as an outlaw, but then you realized that that wasn't the life you wanted live, so you left the life and tried to live peacefully with your wife and son. Then, the government kidnaps your family and holds them hostage, saying that they'll give your family back and excuse your crimes if you hunt down some of your old gang members. You now have two options: 1) Turn yourself in and pay the consequences for your crimes, as well as abandon your family to an unknown fate. 2) Tow the line and do the fed's *****-work, as well as doing any number of other people's *****-work along the way to get to your ultimate goal: give the government what they want so you can have your family back and live the peaceful life.

Now I never bought that explanation. At one point he has all three of the people responsible for his family's kidnapping in arms reach. There was clearly a third option here: Beat the fuck out of them until they tell you where the family is, and given Marston's actions throughout the game this doesn't seem like a leap. This is also the late 19th century, where the fastest form of communication is the Telegraph, meaning that the bad guy can't have a "kill the family if I don't call every fifteen minutes" cop out like other modern stories. There was absolutely no reason Marston couldn't "extract" the information from the kidnapper, and his failure to do so just makes him look like a pansy.

OT:

I too will be buying both GTA V and The Third.

 

[MonkeyPunch]

Oh wow. Totally agree with everything in this episode. This is precisely what I have been saying [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.321205-THQ-is-Unruffled-by-the-GTA-V-Trailer#13135874] too.

 

[UsefulPlayer 1]

I like the gritty realism. I think it makes the silly massacres more entertaining. The rag doll physics just makes it real nice when running people over.

So Rockstar you can have more of my money.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

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.

Do me a favor.

Set aside any possible biases or assumptions and try to imagine yourself in John Marston's situation:

You ran for years as an outlaw, but then you realized that that wasn't the life you wanted live, so you left the life and tried to live peacefully with your wife and son. Then, the government kidnaps your family and holds them hostage, saying that they'll give your family back and excuse your crimes if you hunt down some of your old gang members. You now have two options: 1) Turn yourself in and pay the consequences for your crimes, as well as abandon your family to an unknown fate. 2) Tow the line and do the fed's *****-work, as well as doing any number of other people's *****-work along the way to get to your ultimate goal: give the government what they want so you can have your family back and live the peaceful life.

Now I never bought that explanation. At one point he has all three of the people responsible for his family's kidnapping in arms reach. There was clearly a third option here: Beat the fuck out of them until they tell you where the family is, and given Marston's actions throughout the game this doesn't seem like a leap. This is also the late 19th century, where the fastest form of communication is the Telegraph, meaning that the bad guy can't have a "kill the family if I don't call every fifteen minutes" cop out like other modern stories. There was absolutely no reason Marston couldn't "extract" the information from the kidnapper, and his failure to do so just makes him look like a pansy.

So he extracts the info and kills all three of them. Then he goes to the federal compound where his family is being held, killing anyone and everyone that tries try to stop him? One man against multiple trained federal personnel? Yeah, that makes sense.

But let's just say that he does. He goes all Rambo on the facility and busts his family out. Then what? Where could he possibly go that he and his family could live peacefully without being hounded by the feds? No where, that's where.

The way he went about it in the story was the only reasonable and plausible way that he could give his family a peaceful life. And that's the key. IF he lowered himself to the place of "torturer" on those greasy agents and extracted the info, and IF he could defy all odds and bust them out a secured federal compound, he could get them back, sure, but then what? He'd be forcing his wife and son to go on the lamb with him as he is now considered a highly dangerous fugitive.

Ultimately, he wasn't looking to "deal justice" to the manipulative feds, he was looking for a second chance, a...what's the word? Ah yes, a "redemption."

Like I told ConjurerOfChaos, if you don't like the story or the character, that's fine, if you're going to argue that the story or the character are badly written, I'll go to the mat as long as it takes.