You gotta be fuckin shitting me.....
How in the world is that worse or different than promoting mafia lifestyles in the other games?
So out of all of the horrible things that have been in the GTA series, you find promoting gang lifestyle in San Andreas to be the worst? Interesting...
See above.
"Hey Sweet, I made millions of dollars, started producing records, made a contact within the CIA, own all the property in San Andreas, learned how to fly, have connects with a Asian crime syndicate, smoked Ryder and most of the people plotting against us, AND busted you out of jail with no overhang whatsoever. We can do anything, what should we do?"
"CJ you lost your heart man, you turned your back on the hood, our family. I'm going back there and taking it back."
You then continue to become ghetto jesus and another few hundred people because Sweet says its the honest and heartfelt thing to do. Also, Enzom, if you want to imply I'm racist, just say that. Instead of passive aggressively implying I am one and not elaborating at all.
I understand what you're saying, but you're still talking about two different approaches to characters. Max isn't intended to be bad guy. He's just someone that's really fucked up and is trying to make the best of things. The main character in GTA are bad people and that's how they're are portrayed. There's really no way of getting around how shitty they are.
How's that any different than the mob based GTA's?
We are in a market that is seeing fewer "AAA" releases being made as the market shifts away from traditional, $60 console development.
A third fewer packaged, disc based games have been released over the past 12 months versus the year prior.
So while I agree that more variety in theme, tone, etc would be welcome in the big budget space, it's getting harder to see that happening. Almost all of the innovation in thought and mechanics are coming from smaller budget games.
It's not something to be lamented, it's something to be celebrated. And to say that low budget, independent games like Limbo, Braid, heck even Minecraft fits this definition, have not been influential on the industry is far from correct.
And really, you're looking to GTA to be a vanguard of this evolution of the medium? Seriously?
I understand what you're saying, but you're still talking about two different approaches to characters. Max isn't intended to be bad guy. He's just someone that's really fucked up and is trying to make the best of things. The main character in GTA are bad people and that's how they're are portrayed. There's really no way of getting around how shitty they are.
Also, I don't think comparing Hollywood level writing to Rockstar level writing is even worth it. American Gangster, Scarface, The Godfather and Breaking Bad had much more nuanced stories and characters (not caricatures). And the stories surrounding those characters allows them to work better in the eyes of the viewer.
Films have much better plots and characters than what Rockstar managed to string together for their game.
Nico was acceptable (Oscar worthy lol) for 2008. Six years later you'd expect Rockstar to produce something better, not worse.
Not me.
CJ actually became something more than a criminal, he eventually owns a large part of an entire state. Claude was a mute nobody that didn't really have a stake in anything or any motivation. Tommy was a heartless prick who just as scummy as anybody else in that game. CJ starts with nothing, gets betrayed, and then ends up more successful and more powerful than anybody else in the game.
The only motivation for engaging in turf wars at the end is to continue to the last mission and Sweet forcing the idea onto Carl. ANYBODY that thinks Sweet's reintroduction and following motivation wasn't forced or unfitting to the actual narrative is gonna need to argue that.
Then why even attempt to tell a story for these characters? Why not just say "Here's three shitty people, go rob stuff and kill citizens until we run out missions"? Have you seen the ending to GTAV? Three shitty people basking in a sunset after an uninteresting crime romp of a story.
Tommy and Ken are the two most powerful individuals in Vice City once the game ends. He owns multiple businesses and pretty much controls the criminal underworld there.
.
Why am I watching the Terminator fuck people up?
Why am I reading about Edmond Dantes getting revenge on the people that wronged him?
Tommy and Ken are the two most powerful individuals in Vice City once the game ends. He owns multiple businesses and pretty much controls the criminal underworld there.
Because they want to tell stories about terrible people. There's room for that in this industry alongside redemption stories and cute stories. Especially considering that they're pretty much the only developer telling those stories.
This is a perfect example of failing to recognize the difference between a story that contains violence, disturbing imagery but still has a moral compass and a story that rides off violence and disturbing imagery for shock and pleasure. I haven't read The Count of Monte Cristo but there is a gulf between what The Terminator films do and what GTAV is doing.
The original Terminator film sternly presents the Terminator character as the antagonist - a symbol of terror and violence when we let technology get out of hand. It's an extremely straightforward example. The sequel pits The Terminator as a hero, but one who doesn't understand the nuances or delicacies of human life so he needs a human influence to teach him. From the beginning of meeting John Connor, he immediately stops killing people - he doesn't understand why - that'll take him the duration of the film to understand, but he doesn't do it. So do you understand that just because the Terminator films are framed as violent action movies, they have a clear moral backbone that can be readily consumed without feeling like I have to take a cold shower afterwards?
Even in more harrowing, hard hitting movies like, let's just say Fight Club - a film where our protagonist is riding a very morally grey line - the film itself never falls into a moral quandary - on the contrary, it's making mature and thought provoking statements about male, animalistic desire for violence and how that can go very, very wrong. Its moral compass is in good stead.
It's not a question of censorship. It's not a question of "Think of the children!" It's a question of "Is this really the best we can do?" Is this what 'storytelling' is in video games? Is this ultimately vapid, wasteful, reckless and immature? Could we replace this schlock with something more meaningful and moral? And by no means is this exclusive to GTAV - this is an ongoing issue with the medium as a whole. There are far too many in the industry ready to hand wave the entire problem. "Video Games are made for adults! Didn't you see the R-rating on the cover?" Then make a game for adults - with the meaning, maturity and nuance an adult should expect.
You're doing a good job all on your own."Hey Sweet, I made millions of dollars, started producing records, made a contact within the CIA, own all the property in San Andreas, learned how to fly, have connects with a Asian crime syndicate, smoked Ryder and most of the people plotting against us, AND busted you out of jail with no overhang whatsoever. We can do anything, what should we do?"
"CJ you lost your heart man, you turned your back on the hood, our family. I'm going back there and taking it back."
You then continue to become ghetto jesus and another few hundred people because Sweet says its the honest and heartfelt thing to do. Also, Enzom, if you want to imply I'm racist, just say that. Instead of passive aggressively implying I am one and not elaborating at all. Being a gangbanger makes zero sense in a world where you can earn hundreds and thousands of dollars, along with becoming a millionaire quite easily.
I actually think it is responsible. It's a satire which demands intelligence to understand that. I don't think they should pander to the lowest common denominator. I see your point, but I'm under the "It's just a video game" camp.I recently got GTAV for PS4 and upon playing it again, the game is incredible. The context, though? What the fuck were they doing?
It's amazingly orchestrated, even if it is an example of "videogames emulating films", because it marries both mediums masterfully. Still, you'd think a company with that much brand power would find themselves obligated to exercise that influence more responsibly.
Why am I playing as the guy that holds a woman hostage against a battalion of state troopers after blowing up a bank?
I get they still consider their games to be about "harmless caricatures" in a fantasy satirical world, but if you're gonna go through the trouble of having this Hollywood-esque production in your intro and the story's set up, then it begs the question of "why not bring the context you provide up to the same level?".
I'm merely whining about characters and story here. The world is beautifully constructed and the game is a monster. It's incredible, mechanically. But they really dropped the ball with characters and storytelling.
I don't have an answer as to how to make a story within a sandbox game compelling. But there have to be better ways to get the player invested in all of the game's brilliantly crafted mechanics than what they provided.
I kept thinking Heat or End of Watch as I played the intro, but then it hit me: this is just a crazy kid's fantasy.
Anyone else feel this way?
You're doing a good job all on your own.
You're right, GTA6 should be centered around feeding the homeless and volunteering.
A lot of people spend their time in GTA mowing down civilians, too. It's a harmless outlet for negative energy.
They shouldn't have to alter the story they want to tell just because it's a video game. Do you feel the same way about books or movies?
Apples and oranges.
When they manage to make a fun sanbox game with the same caliber writing as the gangster movies they're inspired by then I'll quit criticizing them.
But they keep writing with their tongues sitting comfortably in their cheeks because the gaming press keeps calling them Oscar worthy writers.
I get where you are coming from OP, but I think it is still a very difficult process for a video game to narrate a story under the same mature light and pacing of films...
For example, the part's that turned me off the most in GTA V campaign was when I was shooting and killing hoards of swat cops, just marching to their deaths running towards me (post major heist mission)
They kept coming by the hundreds and I kept shooting them, felt like a satirical Charlie Sheen movie satirizing 80's Chuck Norris (or Rambo) movies of incredible enemy body counts.
Then I asked myself, if they didn't have this overwhelming number of cops (enemy AI) coming at you and try to take you out, how else would this game have action game play, gun fights etc?
I feel like video game design is still at it's early stages where developers are too self conscious to make a game where it's mostly focused on dialogue and smart story, with only small spurts of (more realistic) gun battles. basically I guess what I am trying to say is, we are about a good three decades behind movies, when it comes to action oriented video games today.
On the flip side what I think GTA V does best is not only focus on one, mature responsible story but successfully mimic pop culture, social and political commentary and satire... and it does that well, and it assume the gamer is mature enough to enjoy the violence as a game and fantasy, and really IMHO if the game took it self slightly more seriously, it will probably fail in the narrative side, quite badly.
GTAV being tongue in cheek is what makes its wonton destruction and violence so much fun. GTAIV had a huge problem with tone because it was so goddamn deadly serious all the time in cutscenes, but had the body count of an 80s action flick and the same goofy jokes GTA usually has. It was kind of a mess, in retrospect.
GTAV's tone is more in line with a dark comedy, which serves it far better.
I haven't played 5 yet but I have always seen GTA as a satire. Our society is fucked, like completely. Rockstar are taking all the isms present, placing them in a game and splashing it with a healthy dose of hyperbole just to make sure it's obvious that this is a satirical social commentary. The fact that it generates so much controversy in the media when so many more corrupt and fucked up things are perpetrated by the media and those that control it is down right hilarious. Rockstar are like the Always Sunny In Philly of video games. GODS.
edit; I am also someone who thinks that it is a rightful 18+ game and youngins should not be anywhere near it. Off topic, I saw in my FB feed an acquaintances' son (must be about 11-12) with an COD hoody. Like wtf?
I thought GTA was your favorite game because you can brutally murder cops.GTA 5 is dripping with misogyny, homophobia, and transphobia. It's not just in the "ironic" or "satirical" moments, either -- and even if it were, that defense is weak as hell. Every woman in the game is given a misogynistic portrayal, and seriously, fuck jokes that try to make gay and trans people out to be freaks.
I returned the game after a few days when it first came out last year, and I'm sure as hell not buying another GTA game again. I'm able to tolerate problematic shit in the media I enjoy, but GTA bashes me over the head with it to the point that I can't have fun.
The problem you're experiencing is trying to justify the enjoyment you get out of the medium. When I think of games progressing, I think about gameplay concepts and designs that are both polished and intuitive. I don't think about how this medium can be elevated, constantly missed potential, what games should've been.
I get they still consider their games to be about "harmless caricatures" in a fantasy satirical world, but if you're gonna go through the trouble of having this Hollywood-esque production in your intro and the story's set up, then it begs the question of "why not bring the context you provide up to the same level?".
I'm merely whining about characters and story here. The world is beautifully constructed and the game is a monster. It's incredible, mechanically. But they really dropped the ball with characters and storytelling.
Could we replace this schlock with something more meaningful and moral?
So many posts assuming the thread title was going a diff direction.
Anyway. Maybe if there was more story, character dev, i would play a GTA game longer. Never finished one. Looking forward to try again with V on pc next year
GTA 5 is dripping with misogyny, homophobia, and transphobia. It's not just in the "ironic" or "satirical" moments, either -- and even if it were, that defense is weak as hell. Every woman in the game is given a misogynistic portrayal, and seriously, fuck jokes that try to make gay and trans people out to be freaks.
I returned the game after a few days when it first came out last year, and I'm sure as hell not buying another GTA game again. I'm able to tolerate problematic shit in the media I enjoy, but GTA bashes me over the head with it to the point that I can't have fun.
I actually think it is responsible. It's a satire which demands intelligence to understand that. I don't think they should pander to the lowest common denominator. I see your point, but I'm under the "It's just a video game" camp.
The fact of the matter is that Rockstar still has some of the most talented writers in the industry, and they are one of the few developers who allow that writing to permeate and shape the design of the entire game. My complaints can extend themselves to all AAA games, but Rockstar in particular seems especially capable of excelling in that area.
I'm not entirely sure if the OP is talking about being responsible in the sense of simply having writing and characters that match the quality of everything else or responsible in the sense of setting a better moral standard to its audience.
Considering the main appeal of the games I can't agree with the latter interpretation.
It's the former.
But people love to assume it's always the latter to push that Rockstar are virtually untouchable/don't owe anybody anything/etc because they're regarded as some game design deity.
EDIT:
Which is all the more reason to expect better efforts from them to make the "M" on their game boxes actually stand for "Maturity". As it stands they're ambitious in their designs and not much else. The medium remains as technically impressive and as immature as ever. A child's toy. But they keep chasing that Hollywood carrot!