Support NeoGAF

[Solid SOAP]

There was a topic posted recently linking to a Buzzfeed video of feminists playing GTA V for the first time. In typical Buzzfeed fashion, it was created clearly for the sake of hits and stirring up "controversy" moreso than it was created with the intention of informing its viewers of actual problematic elements within the game and how we as a community of gamers can be more mindful of these toxic cultural elements. Poster 'hobblygobbly' pointed this out in his post, linking to a far more interesting blogpost written by an anonymous feminist:

It's painfully obvious that this just exists to drum up controversy/drama. It doesn't offer any insight. It's typical buzzfeed.

There are proper GTA critiques by feminists out there, I read this one back when the game originally released (there are many more out there). It was the first one I read: https://feministborgia.wordpress.com/2013/10/19/grand-theft-auto-v-a-feminists-review/

I implore you all read it in its entirety on your own. It's not like incredibly well written or anything, but it is nice to see an unbiased perspective on a game that is genuinely sexist, in a media that is in dire need of cultural change. One thing to keep in mind though is this: IT IS POSSIBLE TO CRITICIZE SEXISM/TRANSPHOBIA/HOMOPHOBIA/ANY ELEMENT OF TOXIC CULTURE IN MEDIA YOU ENJOY. I love GTA V, it is a true guilty pleasure for me. Cruising through Los Santos can be anywhere from relaxing to heart-pounding. It is as much a treat to look at as it is to play, I love it. However, my enjoyment of the game was hampered when I realized that I could spend quality time with Michael's son Jimmy, but not his daughter. When I see signs that say "SMELL LIKE A BITCH," I am not offended but I question the humor in it to begin with, and wonder what the women I spend time with think of me when I am immersed in a world that portrays them as two-dementional whores.

 

[pakkit]

Thanks for the link. I kind of struggled with this anti-feminist aspect of the game while I played. There is undoubted misogyny in the game, especially when you consider that the female characters that show any resolve are punished. Polygon highlighted the tremendously disturbing scene where Floyd's wife is disposed of. Even the gameplay options when interacting with women reinforces this hypermasculine viewpoint: you can beat or kill women, cat-call women, or use them for sex.

While playing the game, I tried to justify the story by suggesting that the game is misanthropic on a whole (which seems to be the recurring counterargument regarding GTA)--but I think that the "good endings" kind of throw that reading away. The game believes that Trevor, Michael, and Franklin are redeemable. To see the game extend pathos to these violent monsters kind of spoils the misanthropic reading of the game.

In the end, I'd argue that GTAV's storyline exists to serve GTAV's gameplay. The developers looked at what players when they didn't play the storyline--cause havoc, kill indiscriminately, and use the game's sexualized women--and imagined a world where such behavior would be expected. To me, that's what GTAV is: it shows us the worst parts of American humanity, full of vapidity, needless violence, the mistreatment of women and ethnic minorities, and puts this grotesqueness center-stage in front of a startlingly realistic, beautiful, naturalistic San Andreas backdrop. The story offers no solace. If you play GTA looking for an ounce of humanity and hope, you're going to have to literally find it yourself by exploring the world and taking in its vistas.

 

[A-V-B]

Just out of curiosity, how can a human perspective be unbiased? Viewpoints are subjective by nature.

 

[pakkit]

Just out of curiosity, how can a human perspective be unbiased? Viewpoints are subjective by nature.

It looks like OP meant "unbiased" in comparison to Buzzfeed's link-bait feminist reading of GTAV.

 

[VicWraith]

you can beat or kill women, cat-call women, or use them for sex.

You can also beat or kill men. Why isn't anyone crying about that?
Oh wait, it's because of gender equality, right?

 

[Deleted member 126221]

You can also beat or kill men. Why isn't anyone crying about that?
Oh wait, it's because of gender equality, right?

Can you also cat call them or use them for sex?

 

[civilstrife]

You can also beat or kill men. Why isn't anyone crying about that?
Oh wait, it's because of gender equality, right?

You would have to be literally blind and deaf to play GTA and think that the game treats men and women equally.

 

[HighResTomato]

Different folks can interpret things differently. I think this blogger falls under the paranoid, persecution complex crowd.

I've played GTA with female friends loads of times and they visit stripclubs on GTA online and after shoot the place up.


Why are players able to visit prostitutes/strippers in a 18+ game? Why not? They can do all sorts of activities in the game.

But if GTA "hates" women, then it also hates law enforcement, government and the entire United States.

Can you also cat call them or use them for sex?

I don't think any of the characters are gay.

Edit: you are playing a character written by Rockstar for a certain world, not your own personal created character.

 

[CLEEK]

Can you also cat call them or use them for sex?

Are you suggesting cat calling or using sex workers is a worse crime than murder?

 

[civilstrife]

Are you suggesting cat calling or using sex workers is a worse crime than murder?

Nice baiting. I mean, it's completely intellectually dishonest and a massive red herring, but still, I appreciate the sheer strength of will it must take to steer the conversation so obviously away from logic.

 

[Deleted member 126221]

Are you suggesting cat calling or using sex workers is a worse crime than murder?

What the actual fuck.

 

[Crema]

I wonder if a GTA game would be as popular without the blatant sexism.

 

[CLEEK]

Nice baiting. I mean, it's completely intellectually dishonest and a massive red herring, but still, I appreciate the sheer strength of will it must take to steer the conversation so obviously away from logic.

It was on par with the comment I was replying too. GTA is full of problematic content. Violence towards men and women is one of them. And in the scheme of things, far more concerning than the oft-critised sexist issues in the game.

I don't ever such much benefit in critiquing a subset of issues in a game. Cherry picking certain points and ignoring the rest. Take a holistic approach.

FWIW, I'm not a fan of GTA at all. It's content is a big part of that.

 

[Griss]

I really have no issue at all with the strip club or prostitution angle of GTA and do not think those elements are sexist at all.

The times I got a whiff of misogyny off the game were the portrayals of Floyd's wife and the competent lawyer Molly who worked for Devin Weston. A competent or clever woman is clearly presented in the game as both a joke and a threat, and there seemed to be this assumption that the player would really just love to see them bitches get what was coming to them. That, I feel, was properly sexist storytelling. The rest of the stuff people usually discuss is simply a function of game design rules and the world that Rockstar likes to build.

But yes, I'd agree that GTA V is sexist in parts. Still loved it though.

 

[pakkit]

While playing the game, I tried to justify the story by suggesting that the game is misanthropic on a whole (which seems to be the recurring counterargument regarding GTA)--but I think that the "good endings" kind of throw that reading away. The game believes that Trevor, Michael, and Franklin are redeemable. To see the game extend pathos to these violent monsters kind of spoils the misanthropic reading of the game.

Do any of the "what about the men?" arguers have a response? Let's not bother conflating murder to sexual abuse, because that thread is absolutely ridiculous.

1.I've played GTA with female friends loads of times and they visit stripclubs on GTA online and after shoot the place up.

2.Why are players able to visit prostitutes/strippers in a 18+ game? Why not? They can do all sorts of activities in the game.

3.But if GTA "hates" women, then it also hates law enforcement, government and the entire United States.

4.I don't think any of the characters are gay.

Edit: you are playing a character written by Rockstar for a certain world, not your own personal created character.

1. This observation is irrelevant to feminist critique. Feminism=/=women's opinions. Feminism is a ideology that pushes against systemic patriarchal constructs that have relegated female achievements through the course of human history, and its aim to create a more equal-footing. Feminist critique is a form of literary analysis that looks at how women (and, more recently minorities) are represented in media.

2. Videogames have infinite possibilities for interaction. The fact that GTA's world limits interacting with female characters to such a demeaning and objectifying role says something about the games character. Of course, artistic freedom is always a counterpoint to literary criticism. So, if you're arguing that Rockstar meant to belittle women (which I suspect they did, since their game is pure cynicism) then we're agreed.

3. See my original post on why I disagree that a misanthropic reading of GTA is justifiable.

4. Trevor is bisexual. This, of course, could lead to further problems if we suggest that Rockstar wanted to emphasize his craziness by making him bi. I don't really agree with that argument, though. I think his sexual orientation is mostly meant to show why Trevor is so distraught when he finds out the truth about Brad.

 

[Jintor]

While playing the game, I tried to justify the story by suggesting that the game is misanthropic on a whole (which seems to be the recurring counterargument regarding GTA)--but I think that the "good endings" kind of throw that reading away. The game believes that Trevor, Michael, and Franklin are redeemable. To see the game extend pathos to these violent monsters kind of spoils the misanthropic reading of the game.

In the end, I'd argue that GTAV's storyline exists to serve GTAV's gameplay. The developers looked at what players when they didn't play the storyline--cause havoc, kill indiscriminately, and use the game's sexualized women--and imagined a world where such behavior would be expected. To me, that's what GTAV is: it shows us the worst parts of American humanity, full of vapidity, needless violence, the mistreatment of women and ethnic minorities, and puts this grotesqueness center-stage in front of a startlingly realistic, beautiful, naturalistic San Andreas backdrop. The story offers no solace. If you play GTA looking for an ounce of humanity and hope, you're going to have to literally find it yourself by exploring the world and taking in its vistas.

I agree with this, though not perhaps with the idea that Trevor is considered redeemable (maybe not even Michael; Franklin perhaps, but only because he is the blankest slate that ever did blank). Rather, I think as you say that it's more that GTA's world is the kind of world where even a monster like Trevor can continue to exist. I wouldn't necessarily say he's 'redeemed' by anything.

In a sense, it doesn't even feel like GTAV really has much of a point to it, at least on its story side. It's like... an inevitable chain of events from a bunch of assholes fucking one another over, regretting fucking one another over, and then fucking one another over again. And then you get three options on your phone and follow the chain to the next.

 

[Dice//]

I think a new GTA game could do well with a female character as part of the group. Hell, "ease into it" and make her a Bayonetta-esque British sexy, sassy, and classy sort who can blow shit up too.

The game is fun, but I definitely think Pakkit put it best in a sentence:

In the end, I'd argue that GTAV's storyline exists to serve GTAV's gameplay.

Bingo. It's a lot of fun doing the stuff many would never dare to do and live a life steeped in reality but still far from it.
Still, there's room for improvement, and I think it's high time after so many runs at it.

 

[Vice]

You can also beat or kill men. Why isn't anyone crying about that?
Oh wait, it's because of gender equality, right?

Many people do complain about that. This is focused on female characters and treatment though.

 

[VicWraith]

Beating and killing a woman in a video game = "This game is sexist! Ban it! Ban it right now!".

Beating and killing a man in a video game = "It's just a game you nerd! It doesn't mean anything."

I will ask my question again:
You can torture and kill men in GTA V, why isn't anyone crying about that?

Also:
http://gta.wikia.com/By_the_Book

 

[Tizoc]

I wonder if a GTA game would be as popular without the blatant sexism.

I think it still would; GTA is mostly about played for the open world stuff and chaos you do

 

[KyanMehwulfe]

Amanda, if anything, is a stronger character and basically the only person in the game that threatens or overpoweres Michael, and can make him feel truly weak to the state of being miserable and begging for her to come bag. She's demeaned in her own ways, and certainly not a 'good' or inspriring character. Basically still a demeaning 'LA house wife.' But, that aside, in the end she's the only one that has any sort of actual emotional impact over Michael. She's basically the one that forces Michael to change and the main driver behind all the heists -- Michael's desperate need for her and his family back.

Debra is hardly even a character... she's just a caricature tool used to show Floyd as weak. Then, she's used as a tool to show Trevor as crazy, have some escalation, etc etc. Whether she was a female or male was mostly irrelevant.

Molly, however, was a bit sadist. She was a rather good character, strong and confident, and actually supported decently enough to be believable. And then, out of nowhere, she goes bat shit crazy and hysterical, and is basically sacrificed basically just for gore's sake. It was sort of meant to be justification for why Devin Westin gets angry at Michael, but the story basically conveys that because he basically showed no care toward her before that point and it felt more like he got angry just because he lost money. So, in the end, she was basically just sacrificed for the sake of the shock value of seeing someone sucked into a jet turbine like a meat grinder.

Debra dying was a good scene and fit Trevor's story. Molly dying was completely pointless and actually felt like a waste of a decent character for shock value. It was a decent shock, but they could have handled in far better ways toward both the story (during an actually important mission or even heist) and also without wasting Molly and devolving her to a hysterical maniac.

 

[ItsTheNew]

Scanned for the score, was let down

 

[Corpekata]

Beating and killing a woman in a video game = "This game is sexist! Ban it! Ban it right now!".

Beating and killing a man in a video game = "It's just a game you nerd! It doesn't mean anything."

I will ask my question again:
You can torture and kill men in GTA V, why isn't anyone crying about that?

Also:
http://gta.wikia.com/By_the_Book

That mission was heavily criticized, probably the most widely criticized part of GTAV.

But given your shitty attempts at straw men, you probably already knew that.

 

[VicWraith]

Many people do complain about that. This is focused on female characters and treatment though.

Well... I wouldn't say "many".
And why do they just focus on female characters? Why don't they focus on BOTH male and female characters?

 

[Vice]

Beating and killing a woman in a video game = "This game is sexist! Ban it! Ban it right now!".

Beating and killing a man in a video game = "It's just a game you nerd! It doesn't mean anything."

I will ask my question again:
You can torture and kill men in GTA V, why isn't anyone crying about that?

Also:
http://gta.wikia.com/By_the_Book

That was the topic in the game that garnered the nost attention around release though. People still dislike the overall violence level and many found the torture scene too extreme. However, it is possible to critique one part of a work rather than the whole thing. It couldn't be unusual to see a critique of the Christian themes and allusions in a C.S. Lewis novel rather than an overview of all imagery in it for example.

edit:

Well... I wouldn't say "many".
And why do they just focus on female characters? Why don't they focus on BOTH male and female characters?

The overall violence level in GTA games has been one of the biggest things examined since the series has existed, well atleast since GTA3 became a cultural juggernaut. And, there is nothing wrong with focusing on one element of a piece of art. That is how critique is done for everything from film to books to plays to paintings. And the article posted in the OP does discuss the treatment of both male and female characters.

 

[VicWraith]

Your examples are goofy. That mission was heavily criticized, if not the most criticized part of GTAV.

ok... let me ask you this:
Was this mission criticized because it was about a man being tortured?
By that I mean did they talk about the character's gender?

 

[Jintor]

Beating and killing a woman in a video game = "This game is sexist! Ban it! Ban it right now!".

Beating and killing a man in a video game = "It's just a game you nerd! It doesn't mean anything."

I will ask my question again:
You can torture and kill men in GTA V, why isn't anyone crying about that?

Also:
http://gta.wikia.com/By_the_Book

I seem to recall a score of articles back when the game was first around discussing the (ham-fisted imo) use of torture. Aside from that, the GTA series has always been the poster child of 'video games are violent!' with analysis ranging from the asinine to the detailed in various forms across the last two decades.

But more to the point, this thread is specifically about feminist critiques of the game and wandering in here and waving your own issues about the game is a bit like walking into a race-focused discussion and asking why isn't it all about white people.

 

[civilstrife]

It was on par with the comment I was replying too. GTA is full of problematic content. Violence towards men and women is one of them. And in the scheme of things, far more concerning than the oft-critised sexist issues in the game.

I don't ever such much benefit in critiquing a subset of issues in a game. Cherry picking certain points and ignoring the rest. Take a holistic approach.

FWIW, I'm not a fan of GTA at all. It's content is a big part of that.

On par? Seriously?

Beyond just your obvious baiting, your logic is seriously fucked. GTA is a violent game. Most games today are. And that somehow absolves it of criticism for its sexism?

The game is both violent and sexist. Violence doesn't cancel out the sexism. By your logic, 90% of AAA games are immune to critique because they contain murder.

 

[ZiZ]

sexism is a problem in video games in general.

but in GTA it should be expected, as should stuff like racism and homophobia, it's a series about bad people doing bad things for bad reasons in a bad world.

 

[pakkit]

I agree with this, though not perhaps with the idea that Trevor is considered redeemable (maybe not even Michael; Franklin perhaps, but only because he is the blankest slate that ever did blank). Rather, I think as you say that it's more that GTA's world is the kind of world where even a monster like Trevor can continue to exist. I wouldn't necessarily say he's 'redeemed' by anything.

In a sense, it doesn't even feel like GTAV really has much of a point to it, at least on its story side. It's like... an inevitable chain of events from a bunch of assholes fucking one another over, regretting fucking one another over, and then fucking one another over again. And then you get three options on your phone and follow the chain to the next.

I don't know, I think the fact that the game sets up this final mission with a moral dilemma as Franklin (who, I agree, is the most-likeable, both because his character is relatively undefined and because he is surrounded by violence) suggests that the game expects you to care about these characters. I do like your conclusion--GTAV...a chain of endless fuckery.

ok... let me ask you this:
Was this mission criticized because it was about a man being tortured?
By that I mean did they talk about the character's gender?

No they talk about his ethnicity, because that's clearly what the game is commenting on.

These "but what about the violence?!" arguments are faulty. Men are the most likely gender to die in a violent manner, at the hands of other men. Women are the most likely gender to die in a violent manner, at the hands of men. The consistent element here is masculine violence, not male victimization.

 

[Horp]

Im struggling to get through the game right now. But it's the way the game treats the subject of murder that gets to me. I think that's a far bigger problem in this game, than the way it treats women. I'm not sure what can be done about it, since murder is central to the core game loop, but it's very disturbing to me. The characters and conversations are so well done that how the characters casually mass murder people is just absurd. I like the game a lot though, so I have kind of an internal conflict about this.

 

[CLEEK]

your logic is seriously fucked.

The game is both violent and sexist. Violence doesn't cancel out the sexism. By your logic, 90% of AAA games are immune to critique because they contain murder.

At no point have I said GTA is beyond criticism. The opposite, in fact. It is riddled with content that deserves critique. I just don't see the benefit in only focusing on one facet and not the work as a whole. Or to clarify, you can look at it from a specific angle - from a gender or race or violence perspective - but you must acknowledge these issues are not in isolation and part of a wider picture.

Else you get things like the campaigns here in Australia to ban the game for sexual violence against woman, which states that this is the only reason to have concerns for the content of the game. It's suggesting that murder, that torture, that theft, that anti-social behaviour is all A-OK, but woman are a protected group that are off limits.

 

[civilstrife]

Im struggling to get through the game right now. But it's the way the game treats the subject of murder that gets to me. I think that's a far bigger problem in this game, than the way it treats women. I'm not sure what can be done about it, since murder is central to the core game loop, but it's very disturbing to me. The characters and conversations are so well done that how the characters casually mass murder people is just absurd. I like the game a lot though, so I have kind of an internal conflict about this.

Fascinating, but what does this have to do with this thread or a feminist critique of the game?

 

[VicWraith]

But more to the point, this thread is specifically about feminist critiques of the game and wandering in here and waving your own issues about the game is a bit like walking into a race-focused discussion and asking why isn't it all about white people.

Yeah... I guess you're right. I really don't why I even bothered to be honest...

Ok guys, GTA V is a sexist and misogynistic game. Rockstar hates all women.

Good night, I'm off to bed.

 

[shacklesmcgee]

Yeah... I guess you're right. I really don't why I even bothered to be honest...

Ok guys, GTA V is a sexist and misogynistic game. Rockstar hates all women.

Good night, I'm off to bed.

Take your MRA ball and leave then.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Rockstar hates all women.

Careful with all that straw, you might accidentally catch fire.

 

[Jintor]

I don't know, I think the fact that the game sets up this final mission with a moral dilemma as Franklin (who, I agree, is the most-likeable, both because his character is relatively undefined and because he is surrounded by violence) suggests that the game expects you to care about these characters. I do like your conclusion--GTAV...a chain of endless fuckery.

I think it's possible for the game to expect you to 'care' about the character but not necessarily to 'forgive' them and achieve (attain?) pathos. For instance, I feel like Michael and Trevor don't ever actually truly forgive one another (Trevor for the obvious reasons, and Michael for Trevor just being a general destructive fuckwit) but they just 'learn to live' with one another. Which is the closest either man can get to friendship, at least with one another.

Im struggling to get through the game right now. But it's the way the game treats the subject of murder that gets to me. I think that's a far bigger problem in this game, than the way it treats women. I'm not sure what can be done about it, since murder is central to the core game loop, but it's very disturbing to me. The characters and conversations are so well done that how the characters casually mass murder people is just absurd. I like the game a lot though, so I have kind of an internal conflict about this.

Yes, this has become a huge problem for me the more cinematic and serious the game gets. These characters will be hella worried about relatively minor crimes after they kill like, thirty people. It's ridiculous.

 

[Chaos17]

You can also beat or kill men. Why isn't anyone crying about that?

Mmh, I tried to say the same thing in another thread about a similar subject, people didn't understood at all.

 

[Corpekata]

Yeah... I guess you're right. I really don't why I even bothered to be honest...

Ok guys, GTA V is a sexist and misogynistic game. Rockstar hates all women.

Good night, I'm off to bed.

Man you are so over the top and histrionic you might as well be a GTA character.

 

[civilstrife]

Yeah... I guess you're right. I really don't why I even bothered to be honest...

Ok guys, GTA V is a sexist and misogynistic game. Rockstar hates all women.

Good night, I'm off to bed.

Yup, that sure is a rational and logical response to being reminded what the thread is about.

...Yup.

 

[Vice]

Yeah... I guess you're right. I really don't why I even bothered to be honest...

Ok guys, GTA V is a sexist and misogynistic game. Rockstar hates all women.

Good night, I'm off to bed.

That's not what anyone is saying though. There are problematic parts. it's no different than saying the perk system and weapon selection in Black Ops 2 is poorly balanced, the constant gore in God of War 3 is too much or that the choice system in Mass Effect 3 fails to give a feeling of player impact. It is criticizing an aspect of the game that some users have an issue with.

You're comments are similar to going to a French restaurant and asking why they don't make hot dogs when the sign clearly says French food.

 

[Galactic Barret]

Aren't there scenes, especially after character swapping, where it is implied that Trevor had sexual relations with a male NPC? That he would then murder afterward? Not that its controllable but its there.

As for cat-calling, a disrespectful gesture to women, don't the MCs flip male NPCs the bird or outright curse them out?

I shouldn't even be in this thread because I don't agree with alot of what feminism has morphed into today.

 

[Crema]

but in GTA it should be expected, as should stuff like racism and homophobia, it's a series about bad people doing bad things for bad reasons in a bad world.

The problem is, it seems to be for no reason. There doesn't seem to be a greater message behind the racism or sexism, which is one of the fundamental differences between satire and just straight out offensive material.

If the story in GTA truly serves no purpose (as has been mentioned in this thread), the sexism only serves as a tool to thrill young men who find pleasure in the degradation of women.

 

[ginger ninja]

why are there spoilers in this thread about character deaths !!!

 

[Jintor]

Further your basic premise - that 'nobody is saying anything about violence against men' is incorrect.

Also the use of the term 'crying about that' as a pejorative, which nobody else mentioned but which I'd like to point out is a great way to dismiss, delegitimise or marginalise criticism without really saying anything.

why are there spoilers in this thread about character deaths !!!

It's very difficult to critique something without spoilering it or assuming everyone in the thread is on the same page as the author as to contents, or at least possible content. There probably should have been spoiler tags, however.

 

[pakkit]

At no point have I said GTA is beyond criticism. The opposite, in fact. It is riddled with content that deserves critique. I just don't see the benefit in only focusing on one facet and not the work as a whole. Or to clarify, you can look at it from a specific angle - from a gender or race or violence perspective - but you must acknowledge these issues are not in isolation and part of a wider picture.

I'm failing to see how feminist critique fails in this regard. Talking about a game's treatment of women does not negate or diminish how it treats men. It is merely another viewpoint to consider, or pursue if you're interested. Feel free to disagree.

Else you get things like the campaigns here in Australia to ban the game for sexual violence against woman, which states that this is the only reason to have concerns for the content of the game. It's suggesting that murder, that torture, that theft, that anti-social behaviour is all A-OK, but woman are a protected group that are off limits.

This thread seems built for analysis of a game already released. Not a single post has called for censorship.

 

[CLEEK]

The problem is, it seems to be for no reason. There doesn't seem to be a greater message behind the racism or sexism, which is one of the fundamental differences between satire and just straight out offensive material.

Referring to GTA as satire has always been pushing that definition way past breaking point. The radio ads and certain missions fit the bill, but for the most part, the story is played out with a straight face. It's no more a satire on violent criminality than Goodfellas or Breaking Bad.

Not a single post has called for censorship.

I didn't say there had been. I was referring to this feminist critique of GTAV that called for its removal from sale - and had some success in achieving this - due to its sexist content alone.

 

[civilstrife]

Mmh, I tried to say the same thing in another thread about a similar subject, people didn't understood at all.

Because the game isn't only about beating and killing people without context. You'd have a point if all the characters were mute and there was literally no story.

The game's story beats regularly take aim at women and womanhood, for seemingly no benefit to the actual gameplay or overall story arc.

 

[Messofanego]

Such rich satire! So subversive, punching down with vulnerable, badly represented, shallow representations of people and totally not just perpetuating stereotypes to maintain the status quo. Definitely will make people rethink traditions.

Then there's the transphobia. It's not one joke here or there. Rockstar's writers wanted to be inclusive so they really went all out. From characters to ads to dialogue.

Michael: Well, hello, Mid-op.

Franklin: Almost fooled me, (bro-she?). Almost.

Franklin: Hey, you need to keep taking your hormones!

 

[Jintor]

The problem is, it seems to be for no reason. There doesn't seem to be a greater message behind the racism or sexism, which is one of the fundamental differences between satire and just straight out offensive material.

I can't tell if GTA's satire has degraded over time or if my sensibilities have become less juvenile. The radio comedy and the character of Lazlow I feel kind of embody this - Lazlow used to be an 'only sane man' kind of character who would constantly point out the hypocrisy and parallels of the world only to be haplessly caught up in some of its issues taken to a hilarious exaggerated conclusion. Now he's a pathetic lech who is still pointing out the hypocrisies of the world but actually, in some sense, is shown to 'deserve' his fate because he's a bad (if still pathetic) person.

I suppose in some sense you could say the satire is "Hey this is some hypocritical shit America pulls and isn't that weirrrrdddddd?" but if so, it's astoundingly weak and goes nowhere with it. The FIB/IAA war as a critique of public institutions or the use of Merryweather on American soil to critique PMCs, to take a random example, is a good starting point but none of it never goes anywhere except to drive what little plot there is. A good example is the torture mission - even though it literally has a motive rant in there where Trevor admits his feelings that torturing for information is completely worthless and he's just doing it for his own personal enjoyment, it somehow manages to not really convey any effective sense of satire of anything really.