TheAdmiester
Member
No. Why change what got them where they are today? What they're doing now is hardly irresponsible.
I mean, you really kind of answer your own question here. You are the type of person who holds a woman hostage because you are the type of person who would blow up a bank. The fact that your first action in the game is stealing from a bank establishes what type of person yoou are and which misdeeds you'd likely engage in. When Michael is taken hostage, he tries to de-escelate the situation through words, which establishes the type of person he is. Trevor, on the other hand, establishes his character by murdering the guard without any hesitation, which effectively establishes his character to the player from the first moment he is introduced. I don't exactly know what it is you're looking for that will further establish or enhance the characters of the game. Delving into their troubled childhoods through flashback sequences? Creating a function that allows the player to explore the character's psyche or inner monologue? Because the characters are effectively established within the first scene of the game, so I don't understand what you really find to be lacking.
Yes the individual experiences each player can have with a game is great I love that kinda stuff, but if I personally enjoyed and got more out of Uncharted 2's ultra linear 10 hr campaign then GTAV's epic amazingly intricate open world is that a problem? Is Uncharted 2 any worse than GTA because it lacks that randomness? To you maybe, as you said on repeat playthrough you lose enjoyment, but replay value is arbitrary.I think they're good for what they are.
But they get old, because they more you repeat playthroughs, the magic is lost.
The magic of videogames I keep rambling about is the malleability of the experience. And this is something Rockstar are the masters of, currently. Even Hideo Kojima has praised them for this, and for good reason.
A friend of mine would have you shot for that. lol
What I meant to say was their branching narratives, as I don't know any other dev that has attempted a story that tells itself through player action.
You don't need to "do that" to my words. I'm criticising the current state of the industry, and if you want to meaningfully engage what i've said then you ought to do so. I'm tired of being constantly disenfranchised in these discussions because "it's just an opinion" and "someone else might think differently", as if i'm not making it clear that this is not a matter of opinion, this is a matter of objectively lower narrative and artistic standards across the board that permit the vacuous hollow that permeates the vast majority of the most influencing titles in the industry, who want to make us think they have a big ingenious story, but who fail so often and so consistently that they may as well be betraying their own expectations of themselves.
So games that try to be meaningful are forever destined to be low budget, independent games which have little to no impact on the industry and how it behaves culturally and in respect to its most visible agents?
Making a game revolving around sociopath protagonists and sociopath characters and not displaying terrible human behavior would actually be irresponsible. The worse thing a GTA has done is San Andreas sorta promoting gang lifestyles and being part of the hood.
Still, you'd think a company with that much brand power would find themselves obligated to exercise that influence more responsibly.
I think he's just saying that he considers the writing to be of poor quality.So you are basically advocating censorship?
Look, I get it. I'm not here to shit on people's opinions. GTAV, as I already said, is a monster of a game. Very well made and designed.
I'm not gonna get on a soapbox and call anyone who doesn't agree with me on all my points a "tasteless, unenlightened peasant". I'm not that self absorbed.
I just saw something that I thought deserved constructive criticism or, at least, would make for some fun discussion, even if it's pure fluffy dreams and conjecture as to what games may or may not become.
Yes the individual experiences each player can have with a game is great I love that kinda stuff, but if I personally enjoyed and got more out of Uncharted 2's ultra linear 10 hr campaign then GTAV's epic amazingly intricate open world is that a problem? Is Uncharted 2 any worse than GTA because it lacks that randomness? To you maybe, as you said on repeat playthrough you lose enjoyment, but replay value is arbitrary.
Narrative and artistic standards are not objective, you can't tell me that they are.
Edit: who set these standards and decided they were the absolute requirements? Why must they be followed?
You're not getting it. This has nothing to do with a perceived slight against gta. I'm asking, again, why you aren't dabbling in game design when you have such strong feelings about design? Making a game isn't an impossible undertaking, even as an amateur.
Look, I have strong feelings about positional tracking that run counter to conventional wisdom. Instead of telling others that they should be responsible for furthering my ideals, I took the onus on myself. The beauty of today's development environment is that anybody can create. There are tools and resources out there to make your vision reality. If you think what you preach is important, and will elevate the medium, and is socially responsible, you owe it to the medium to explore it.
Don't sit around wishing others would evoke your vision, pursue it yourself. THAT elevates the medium, the ability for consumers to also be creators, to take auteurial control out of the hands of a few.
So what is your stance on this?
Are you playing devil's advocate to demonstrate the subjectivity of all this?
Or do you actually prefer sordid, hard to swallow characters?
And yes, I agree. GTAV doesn't make Uncharted 2 objectively bad, just like [Goodie Two Shoes character] doesn't make Trevor objectively bad (from an artistic, creative standpoint, at least).
You're not getting it. This has nothing to do with a perceived slight against gta. I'm asking, again, why you aren't dabbling in game design when you have such strong feelings about design? Making a game isn't an impossible undertaking, even as an amateur.
Look, I have strong feelings about positional tracking that run counter to conventional wisdom. Instead of telling others that they should be responsible for furthering my ideals, I took the onus on myself. The beauty of today's development environment is that anybody can create. There are tools and resources out there to make your vision reality. If you think what you preach is important, and will elevate the medium, and is socially responsible, you owe it to the medium to explore it.
Don't sit around wishing others would evoke your vision, pursue it yourself. THAT elevates the medium, the ability for consumers to also be creators, to take authorial control out of the hands of a few.
Making a game revolving around sociopath protagonists and sociopath characters and not displaying terrible human behavior would actually be irresponsible. The worse thing a GTA has done is San Andreas sorta promoting gang lifestyles and being part of the hood.
Narrative and artistic standards are not objective, you can't tell me that they are.
Edit: who set these standards and decided they were the absolute requirements? Why must they be followed?
I really don't understand this sentiment. Walter White, Michael Corleone, and Scarface are all very sordid and hard to swallow characters, and they are great characters for it. If they weren't sordid or hard to swallow, they would be considerably less compelling in film.Or do you actually prefer sordid, hard to swallow characters?
So, Sleeping Dogs?The next GTA should be about playing badass cops and kicking the shit out of scumbags and cartels etc. There could also be an "undercover cop" part where you infiltrate a gang or the mafia. So many ideas...
Making a game revolving around sociopath protagonists and sociopath characters and not displaying terrible human behavior would actually be irresponsible. The worse thing a GTA has done is San Andreas sorta promoting gang lifestyles and being part of the hood.
I think a lot of people do, hence the popularity of gangster/mob movies. But other than that yes, I think it's all just subjective whether something is meaningful to someone or not. I just don't like people saying that games have to "x" or have to be "y" when in reality we are on a big ass rock spinning in space, so quite frankly games can be what they want to be, and if you like or dislike said game it doesn't really matter. Basically whatever floats your boat.
Or do you actually prefer sordid, hard to swallow characters?
They're the only characters that would work in GTA. These aren't Bioware or Bethesda games where you choose if you want to play a good or bad guy. You're bad. That's the theme of the series. They need to portray the characters as being terrible people.
Yes i can. There are thousands of years of literature and literary studies that are literally designed to teach people how to analyse and how to create stories that have more of this, or more of that, which are more complex or more straightforward, which are more effective or intentionally difficult to grasp. All of these studies have granted us knowledge about how narrative design works, what elements constitute its essentials and how one may use them to one's own ends. Same with every other medium. Art isn't inherently subjective, there is objectivity to art. It's the objectivity in its design, in its content, in its formal constructs, in its efficiency as a vehicle.
But does that argument negate the purpose of this thread?
Like, it's okay to defend what you like. What's not okay is to come out swinging against a dissenting opinion, shouting "CENSORSHIP!!" and "DEAL WITH MY TASTES" as a counter.
I admit the title was a little sensational and hot-button but a quick skim over my posts and it's clear I'm not trying to omit anyone's murder fantasie-- err .. taste.
Max Payne was terrible, that's the biggest issue he struggles with as a character.Nico wasn't terrible. Max Payne wasn't terrible. An open world game with freedoms doesn't have to carry the stigma of "human nature".
I'm not saying there is art that most people would prefer to experience, but to say that automatically makes it better is silly.
Aside from a few nitpicks, I really enjoyed the story. Michael and Franklin are fantastic characters.
You're not the hero in this game.
Which is hilarious when people like Adam Sessler say that GTAV is the Great Expectations of our time.The writing isn't bad, but it should be much better given how brilliant the world is.
You're not getting it. This has nothing to do with a perceived slight against gta. I'm asking, again, why you aren't dabbling in game design when you have such strong feelings about design? Making a game isn't an impossible undertaking, even as an amateur.
Such artistic vision from GTA, indeed.
I'd argue that they're business execs trying to appeal to the focus-tested groups and lowest common denominator to make the most $$$ possible, rather than artists, but maybe I'm too cynical...
Come on.
Why?
absolutely no critique on any medium would be allowed unless it came from people already in the indstry.
Max Payne was terrible, that's the biggest issue he struggles with as a character.
Edit: Oh, do you mean he wasn't a sociopath within the context of the game? I mean, he acknowledges that killing is wrong and he's done a lot of it, but he still continues to do it anyway.
That is the exact opposite of what I'm saying.
That is the exact opposite of what I'm saying.
Nico wasn't terrible. Max Payne wasn't terrible. An open world game with freedoms doesn't have to carry the stigma of "human nature".
Nah, whaaaaaaaaaat
I really don't understand this sentiment. Walter White, Michael Corleone, and Scarface are all very sordid and hard to swallow characters, and they are great characters for it. If they weren't sordid or hard to swallow, they would be considerably less compelling in film.
So, Sleeping Dogs?
Niko killed, smuggled, and sold people before he moved to Liberty City. He tried to change things, but realized that those things were all he was really good at doing. Max is a different case because it's a completely different character in a completely different universe.
So games that try to be meaningful are forever destined to be low budget, independent games which have little to no impact on the industry and how it behaves culturally and in respect to its most visible agents?
Not me.Anyone else feel this way?