Support NeoGAF

[ChawlieTheFair]

You're comparing JD Salinger to fucking Rockstar Games? Are you shitting me?

It's not about pleasing the murder havoc crowd. It's about elevating the medium.

It's not about taking freedom away from the player, it's about making their actions mean more in the grand context of games.

Games weren't invented to be mindless simulations. They have great potential for passive storytelling through player action and gameplay dynamism.

I don't get why they have to "elevate" the medium. I don't get why a game has to have some sort of percieved more important "impact". Why can't GTA just be a big ass game/murder simulator?

Edit: Games or anything really shouldn't have to be anything. They can be whatever they are and you either like it or not.

 

[Deified Data]

Say we retool GTA to be more socially responsible, whatever that means to you.

Who are we doing that for? You? Your impressionable child who shouldn't be playing in the first place?

I can understand criticizing the game from a ludonarrative dissonance standpoint because you're right, it's weird playing as homicidal maniacs and having a warm family moment 5 minutes later, but I don't see how responsibility plays a role in that criticism. Advertising that the game contains mature content is the extent of Rockstar's responsibility.

 

[BobbyRobby]

Someone makes blanket statement with no citation, I ask for citation and the onus is on me?

Sure, here you go: happy reading

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...2/yes-violent-video-games-do-cause-aggression

http://www.apa.org/research/action/protect.aspx

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/child-adolescent-psychiatry/violence-media-what-effects-behavior

http://ejop.psychopen.eu/article/viewFile/217/pdf

It's obviously not black and white, but drive by dismissive remarks about 'thoroughly disproven' without actual research doing so will be called out.

I think the onus should be on the person who made the thread and the claim. I was just furthering the call for proof you began.

I'll read up on these links, thanks.

 

[CosmicQueso]

It's about elevating the medium.

Nope. It's about selling copies and generating investor return. Rockstar does this exceptionally well.

They appeal to some very base level desires in people. By changing that formula, they could lose some of that. Hey, I wish they were better stories as well... but the audience has reacted to this formula. Strongly.

 

[xxracerxx]

That is precisely what I'd call Pong or Space War.

They should elevate Pong...to the Next Level.

 

[BiGBoSSMk23]

I'm sorry for my language, I'm used to typing that way and I apologize.

I just think they don't have to be more repsonsible and they have a right to do as they wish, they can be more responsible but at the end of the day it's their choice.



I may have not used the right word but you get the idea.

I'm not saying GTAV should have been some God-sent, far ahead of its time, mindblowing masterpiece.

But if they can sell MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of a game, for future reference, they should up their ante with storytelling and creating context.

For example, if I go on a murder spree I shouldn't have my slate wiped clean after I half the city is out in a manhunt and I get either Busted or Wasted. I should see repercussions to those actions.

Keep all the amazing freedoms their games provide, but up the difficulty at least.

Demote your citizen status, alter the story, make it mean something somehow. You get a different ending depending on how you play.

That's the magic of videogames. Not only the freedom to do as you please.

 

[Elandyll]

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?

I have never played a Rockstar game because of that, since GTA1. I think I am definely missing out, and particularly lately for GTA V, but I don't see why I should have to play the Scum of the Earth simulator 101 and do things that go against everything I hold dear moraly speaking (no, I am not Religious) in order to play the game, when with a little more work they could probably let us chose how we want to do things.

Maybe I should give RDR a chance some day. Maybe.
But in the meantime it sounds like I am missing on truly great stuff, just because I'd rather not feel like crap while acting like something I decidedly am not.

Oh well. Plenty of other games to play I guess.

 

[Ganzlinger]

You're comparing JD Salinger to fucking Rockstar Games? Are you shitting me?

It's not about pleasing the murder havoc crowd. It's about elevating the medium.

It's not about taking freedom away from the player, it's about making their actions mean more in the grand context of games.

Games weren't invented to be mindless simulations. They have great potential for passive storytelling through player action and gameplay dynamism.

Perhaps that would make GTA a better game. I think I'm understanding better what do you really wanted to mean with responsibility.

 

[Krejlooc]

I'm not saying GTAV should have been some God-sent, far ahead of its time, mindblowing masterpiece.

But if they can sell MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of a game, for future reference, they should up their ante with storytelling and creating context.

For example, if I go on a murder spree I shouldn't have my slate wiped clean after I half the city is out in a manhunt and I get either Busted or Wasted. I should see repercussions to those actions.

Keep all the amazing freedoms their games provide, but up the difficulty at least.

Demote your citizen status, alter the story, make it mean something somehow. You get a different ending depending on how you play.

That's the magic of videogames. Not only the freedom to do as you please.

What you are describing doesn't sound fun in the context of grand theft auto.

 

[QuantumZebra]

As long as movies like SAW are being made then GTA should be allowed to continue.


I just went on a terribly violent rampage in GTAV last night and then played with dinosaurs with my two young daughters. If someone is going to be influenced by something like GTA then it was going to happen sooner or later anyway.

 

[MormaPope]

They should elevate Pong...to the Next Level.

Release a companion book. The bouncing dot is actually a human's soul, the paddle is the "gatekeeper", an entity that exists in purgatory to deter a soul away from heaven or hell. The left side of the screen is heaven, the right side is hell. The agent of hell is the paddle on the left, the agent of heaven is on the right side of the screen.

 

[SolidSnakex]

I'm not saying GTAV should have been some God-sent, far ahead of its time, mindblowing masterpiece.

But if they can sell MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of a game, for future reference, they should up their ante with storytelling and creating context.

For example, if I go on a murder spree I shouldn't have my slate wiped clean after I half the city is out in a manhunt and I get either Busted or Wasted. I should see repercussions to those actions.

Keep all the amazing freedoms their games provide, but up the difficulty at least.

Demote your citizen status, alter the story, make it mean something somehow. You get a different ending depending on how you play.

That's the magic of videogames. Not only the freedom to do as you please.

That's not what Rockstar wants the series to be. They actually talked about doing things like that among other things like making you obey traffic lights or needing gas. They decided against it because they felt it would have a negative impact on the overall fun factor of the series. And that at its core is the most important aspect of the series to them.

 

[Slammin_Hammon]

You're comparing JD Salinger to fucking Rockstar Games? Are you shitting me?

It's not about pleasing the murder havoc crowd. It's about elevating the medium.

It's not about taking freedom away from the player, it's about making their actions mean more in the grand context of games.

Games weren't invented to be mindless simulations. They have great potential for passive storytelling through player action and gameplay dynamism.

I draw the comparison to address how the media might unintentionally draw a response out of a consumer that might be violent. Someone might jack a car because they played GTA and someone shot John Lenin after reading Catcher in the Rye. Obviously they aren't on the same artistic plane.

I'm not sure if games were created with the intention of storytelling so much as fun and enjoyment.

My biggest question though is why should R* have the responsibility to advance the medium? All they need to do is make money and the formula they have been using has worked well for them, so why should they switch things up?

 

[-tetsuo-]

No. They have a story to tell and they did. Game is rated M.

 

[ChawlieTheFair]

I'm not saying GTAV should have been some God-sent, far ahead of its time, mindblowing masterpiece.

But if they can sell MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of a game, for future reference, they should up their ante with storytelling and creating context.

For example, if I go on a murder spree I shouldn't have my slate wiped clean after I half the city is out in a manhunt and I get either Busted or Wasted. I should see repercussions to those actions.

Keep all the amazing freedoms their games provide, but up the difficulty at least.

Demote your citizen status, alter the story, make it mean something somehow. You get a different ending depending on how you play.

That's the magic of videogames. Not only the freedom to do as you please.

So really what you are asking for is an elevation of game design/in-game world impact? If so great I'm all for that, whatever improves the game. That being said, that may be less on R* being irresponsible and more of a techinical limitation thing. I mean look at Shadow of Mordor, which does something kinda similar to what I've bolded, yet they had to take the features out on last-gen versions, and that was hardly a graphical powerhorse or a crazy large world like GTA is. As for alternate ending kinda stuff, GTA has had that, and again that isn't really anything elevating and more copycating what we would consider good design.

 

[Skux]

Companies have no social obligations. The only obligation they have is to make money.

 

[xxracerxx]

Release a companion book. The bouncing dot is actually a human's soul, the paddle is the "gatekeeper", an entity that exists in purgatory to deter a soul away from heaven or hell. The left side of the screen is heaven, the right side is hell. The agent of hell is the paddle on the left, the agent of heaven is on the right side of the screen.

Well the Next Level has been reached, but I like your idea for the sequel.

 

[Lethe82]

Has it now?

Got a source on that?

Most comprehensive and long term study yet concludes:

The first long-term study has been completed on the link between the consumption of violent media and real-life violent acts, and has found... there is none. In fact, the only possible trend that cropped up over the last century was that an increased consumption of violent video games correlated to a decrease in youth violence.

http://www.sciencealert.com/definit...k-found-between-video-game-and-youth-violence

Different study

Another study has been published, this one claiming that there is no evidence to support the notion that violent video games lead to increases in real-world violent crimes. - Villanova University and Rutgers University

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/violent-video-games-dont-lead-to-increases-in-viol/1100-6422421/

Not a study but the opinion of a Former Senior FBI agent senior Profiler, talks about how throughout her work there was never any indication that video games caused violent behavior

Former Federal Bureau of Investigation senior profiler Mary Ellen O'Toole does not believe video games cause violence. Speaking on Face The Nation (run by GameSpot parent company CBS), O'Toole said games are just one variable in a much wider spectrum of risk factors for those who may act out violently.

"It's my experience that video games do not cause violence," O'Toole said. "However, it is one of the risk variables when we do a threat assessment for the risk to act out violently. And my experience has been [that] individuals who are already contemplating acting out in a violent way, if they are also emerged 24/7 in violent videos, to the exclusion of other activities, and they're isolated, and they're actually using these videos as planning or collateral evidence in terms of how to do it better, what equipment to buy, how to select the victims, how to approach the crime scene. If their use is educational materials for the offender to do the crime better, that's what we take into consideration."

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/are-video-games-violence-and-mental-illness-connected/

I can keep going if you want.

There is some evidence to suggest very short term desensitization or increased aggression/acts of aggression/violence (I mean we've all had gamer rage etc) but that is very different from the idea of 'playing Grand Theft Auto will turn you into a serial killer' style Jack Thompson era hysteria long term behavioral problems etc.

Someone makes blanket statement with no citation, I ask for citation and the onus is on me?

Sure, here you go: happy reading

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...2/yes-violent-video-games-do-cause-aggression

http://www.apa.org/research/action/protect.aspx

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/child-adolescent-psychiatry/violence-media-what-effects-behavior

http://ejop.psychopen.eu/article/viewFile/217/pdf

It's obviously not black and white, but drive by dismissive remarks about 'thoroughly disproven' without actual research doing so will be called out.

I don't know if you read those papers much to be honest...

As someone who has actually followed the research, right back at you. More and more recent research is pointing to, as you say, 'it not being a black and white issue'. Some of the studies in the papers you are citing came out decades ago, and we have actually seen an overall decrease in violent crimes as games have gotten more violent. People who are already violent may seek out violent games, but the amount of people who have become violent from playing games is most likely very very small (aside from breaking a controller or what have you).

EDIT: I should also point out that there is also (and this may be changing obviously) a strong case to be made for Publication bias towards 'yes video games cause violence' at least up until relatively recently, as Meta Analysis has more often than not come to that conclusion.

Violence in video games has come under increasing research attention over the past decade. Researchers in this area have suggested that violent video games may cause aggressive behavior among players. However, the state of the extant literature has not yet been examined for publication bias. The current meta-analysis is designed to correct for this oversight. Results indicated that publication bias does exist for experimental studies of aggressive behavior, as well as for non-experimental studies of aggressive behavior and aggressive thoughts.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178907000055

Wouldn't be a first for Social Sciences.

Social sciences suffer from severe publication bias
Survey finds that ‘null results’ rarely see the light of the day.

When an experiment fails to produce an interesting effect, researchers often shelve the data and move on to another problem. But withholding null results skews the literature in a field, and is a particular worry for clinical medicine and the social sciences.

Researchers at Stanford University in California have now measured the extent of the problem, finding that most null results in a sample of social-science studies were never published. This publication bias may cause others to waste time repeating the work, or conceal failed attempts to replicate published research. Although already recognized as a problem, “it’s previously been hard to prove because unpublished results are hard to find”, says Stanford political scientist Neil Malhotra, who led the study.

http://www.nature.com/news/social-sciences-suffer-from-severe-publication-bias-1.15787

If you want to have this conversation we can, I will start linking a lot of newer studies that show how it is not the violence itself that creates violent behavior, and that what does are typically universal triggers in no way unique to video games.

Also special mention:

I'm thinking you haven't actually read any of those (or to be more fair, haven't really cared about the subject too much).

There's a clear distinction in the way these studies are undertaken and the results they provide; some look for any effect on "aggression", not disting1uishing between real-world aggression or one directed at the game world while playing. Other, the actually useful studies, search for links between video games and real world violence (with actual consequences). These have ALWAYS been conclusive and pretty black & white, as you put it.

The most recent one: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...t-video-games-and-youth-violence-9851613.html

I've been following this casually since the early 90's, and there has never been compelling evidence that videogames cause any real-world violence. Ever.

 

[Lunar15]

They can do what they want, but it'd be nice to see.

Morally reprehensible plots or not, they need better writers.

 

[ShinMaruku]

I'm not saying GTAV should have been some God-sent, far ahead of its time, mindblowing masterpiece.

But if they can sell MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of a game, for future reference, they should up their ante with storytelling and creating context.

For example, if I go on a murder spree I shouldn't have my slate wiped clean after I half the city is out in a manhunt and I get either Busted or Wasted. I should see repercussions to those actions.

Keep all the amazing freedoms their games provide, but up the difficulty at least.

Demote your citizen status, alter the story, make it mean something somehow. You get a different ending depending on how you play.

That's the magic of videogames. Not only the freedom to do as you please.

You expect way too much from a very young medium.

 

[BiGBoSSMk23]

What you are describing doesn't sound fun in the context of grand theft auto.

Grand Theft Auto: Dark Mass Souls Effect?

Why not? lol

Look, I'm not delusional. It's not impossible. It's just ... difficult.

A game where the story is shaped and morphs as the player alters the world is not that far off, and honestly, I think Rockstar is up to the task.

Imagine if Rockstar combined with Bioware.

Each game every 10 years but still. That'd be a game worth waiting for.

Maybe someone will come up with a dynamic "game director AI" algorithm akin to Valve's AI director for the L4D series and it'll be the standard.

Who knows, but linear storytelling in these games have to be better handled. Otherwise, even if you allow yourself the odd murderous rampage with lead characters that nasty, you'll end up with a nasty feeling in your gut.

 

[kittens]

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.

 

[ConceptX]

It's a satire of American culture as seen by outsiders. It does a great job at that.

Should of been the first post.

A lot of people forget Rockstar (Specifically Rockstar North (Previously known as DMC) who made GTA, and Rockstar Leeds) was/is a British company, and the game series is a direct satire of tv, film, perceived culture and so on.

 

[BiGBoSSMk23]

That's not what Rockstar wants the series to be. They actually talked about doing things like that among other things like making you obey traffic lights or needing gas. They decided against it because they felt it would have a negative impact on the overall fun factor of the series. And that at its core is the most important aspect of the series to them.

Yeah but those tasks are mundane as fuck and wouldn't impact the story in any way other than making you late for your kid's piano recital. (that could be a mission, just saying).

Spoiler

jk

 

[Mugatu]

I think Rockstar generally does it well but their games are for adults. I wish the industry would stop fighting laws that require ID and crap like that for mature games. I don't know of any real reason they would have a problem with enforcement of their own ratings other than greed because I sure as hell don't know of a IRL artist who thinks giving adult material to kids is censorship.

 

[SolidSnakex]

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.

Everyone in the game is a piece of shit. Let's not sit here and act like they only target specific people. Everyone is terrible. That's kinda the point.

 

[turcy]

nah, it's up to us to censor what we expose ourselves to - based on what might, or might not, influence us to behave in a potentially dangerous manner in real life.

i was reflecting the other day, mind you, on what it says about humanity that GTA [a game that lets you casually punch / run-over other humans willy-nilly] sells as well as it does

 

[Muffdraul]

Rockstar very clearly and openly enjoys causing discomfort in people who worry about this sort of thing. You are only playing right into their hands.

 

[Krejlooc]

Look, I'm not delusional. It's not impossible. It's just ... difficult.

So if you believe there is moral responsibility to make games like you describe, and deem it not impossible, why are you not making said games?

 

[John Kowalski]

I don't get why they have to "elevate" the medium. I don't get why a game has to have some sort of percieved more important "impact". Why can't GTA just be a big ass game/murder simulator?

Edit: Games or anything really shouldn't have to be anything. They can be whatever they are and you either like it or not.

What's bad about asking for higher standards? People ask for 1080/60 as if their lives depended on it, and are willing to publicly decry games because they aren't technically up to snuff. Games are constantly technically held against the highest contemporary standards and expected to wholly fulfil a number of technological prerequisites.

Why should games expect more of themselves artistically? Because that enriches everyone. It enriches the medium, it enriches the culture, it enriches the players, it enriches future games, and it empowers more people to do more and different games. Game can have a message, they can comment on our experiences and on our societies, and when they do they are stronger for it. When they become vehicles for the messages that all of us can give to each other, we all benefit from it.

There is exponentially more value in gameplay and narrative than there is in technical proficiency, yet somehow it's taboo to expect anything less than excellency from the former. Somehow it's "censorship" to demand higher standards in content, as if using that word in such a manner didn't belittle its real strength.

This shit is ridiculous. There is a huge number of artists in game design that want and who constantly strive to be better and more intelligent in their work, yet threads like these are constantly plagued by this kind of belittling attitudes, stifling any kind of interest anyone may have in wanting more out of games, and more out of more games.

 

[jonezer4]

I for one find it refreshing in this day and age of political-correctness and white bread and/or cookie cutter protagonists to have a game that centers around three men of dubious moral integrity.

Not only that, but any one of the three main characters in GTA5 have more legitimate "character" than pretty much any other game released this year.

 

[ChawlieTheFair]

So if you believe there is moral responsibility to make games like you describe, and deem it not impossible, why are you not making said games?

Asking for game improvement shouldn't mean someone should suddenly become a game developer, especially on the scale of games like GTA which cost hundreds of millions to develop. Don't be silly.

What's bad about asking for higher standards? People ask for 1080/60 as if their lives depended on it, and are willing to publicly decry games because they aren't technically up to snuff. Games are constantly technically held against the highest contemporary standards and expected to wholly fulfil a number of technological prerequisites.

Why should games expect more of themselves artistically? Because that enriches everyone. It enriches the medium, it enriches the culture, it enriches the players, it enriches future games, and it empowers more people to do more and different games. Game can have a message, they can comment on our experiences and on our societies, and when they do they are stronger for it. When they become vehicles for the messages that all of us can give to each other, we all benefit from it.

There is exponentially more value in gameplay and narrative than there is in technical proficiency, yet somehow it's taboo to expect anything less than excellency from the former. Somehow it's "censorship" to demand higher standards in content, as if using that word in such a manner didn't belittle its real strength.

This shit is ridiculous. There is a huge number of artists in game design that want and who constantly strive to be better and more intelligent in their work, yet threads like these are constantly plagued by this kind of belittling attitudes, stifling any kind of interest anyone may have in wanting more out of games, and more out of more games.

Because what you consider higher "artistry" someone else may not. It's all just opinion. "There is exponentially more value in gameplay and narrative than there is in techinal proficiency". Says who? you? Regardless, technical proficiency can often help with gameplay or the higher "experience".

 

[xxracerxx]

It's a satire of American culture as seen by outsiders. It does a great job at that.

This is a fantastic post.

 

[CosmicQueso]

Why should games expect more of themselves artistically? Because that enriches everyone. It enriches the medium, it enriches the culture, it enriches the players, it enriches future games, and it empowers more people to do more and different games. Game can have a message, they can comment on our experiences and on our societies, and when they do they are stronger for it. When they become vehicles for the messages that all of us can give to each other, we all benefit from it.

There has never been a time in the medium, ever, as focused on meaningful, enriching experiences as right now.

This is GTA. Not everything has to be a Never Alone or a Gone Home or an Entwined or a Limbo or even a Rayman Legends.

There's room for every kind of game and every kind of player.

This shit is ridiculous. There is a huge number of artists in game design that want and who constantly strive to be better and more intelligent in their work, yet threads like these are constantly plagued by this kind of belittling attitudes, stifling any kind of interest anyone may have in wanting more out of games, and more out of more games.

There are dozens if not hundreds of OTs on games like those you mention that praise games that do what you suggest. And an artist who wants to deliver a message or intelligence in their work aren't aspiring to work on GTA. There are more tools than ever available now for people to work on whatever they want.

Perhaps I should have worded the OP better, but I was in a rush.

Well hopefully you'll slow down next time.

 

[Krejlooc]

Asking for game improvement shouldn't mean someone should suddenly become a game developer, especially on the scale of games like GTA which cost hundreds of millions to develop. Don't be silly.

He's not asking, he's implying this is an imperative.

Yes, I believe once you begin telling people what they should or shouldn't create, and start talking about how possible it all is, and going off about elevating the medium, then, if you believe that strongly in what you preach, you absolutely should try your hand at game development.

 

[Matrix XII]

I've owned every GTA game since GTA III and always loved them.

Since playing GTA IV again last year, I just felt bad while playing the game. I was tired of killing senselessly and being the bad guy. That's why I didn't purchase GTA V.

I knew people would give the OP a hard time in this thread, but I do agree to an extent. However, I don't think Rockstar should be more responsible, it's an adult game that is targeted for that audience. I just made a personal decision not to be a part of it.

 

[BiGBoSSMk23]

Say we retool GTA to be more socially responsible, whatever that means to you.

Who are we doing that for? You? Your impressionable child who shouldn't be playing in the first place?

I can understand criticizing the game from a ludonarrative dissonance standpoint because you're right, it's weird playing as homicidal maniacs and having a warm family moment 5 minutes later, but I don't see how responsibility plays a role in that criticism. Advertising that the game contains mature content is the extent of Rockstar's responsibility.

That's not what I'm saying.

Nico, for example, was a "nice" guy in cutscenes. He wanted to come clean and leave a violent life behind, or so their linear story had me believe. I could stomach his (or my) means of coming clean even if they seemed illogical or hypocritical, because they characterized him a certain way when the game wasn't in my control. Anything else I did when the game was back under my control was on me. But I didn't feel embarrassed as the story cutscenes and player characterization played along with the morally-questionable deeds I performed in between cutscenes.

Is that ludo-narrative dissonance?

Perhaps I should have worded the OP better, but I was in a rush.

It should be Rockstar's responsibility as an industry leader to elevate the medium, though. As I proposed. Either stick with the Nico character archetype, or ditch linear story telling for something more complex.

It's just a suggestion, at the end of the day. They'll keep on making billions.

 

[bobawesome]

Tell you what's disturbing... a pigeon dating simulator.

Responsibility is dead. It's every person for themselves in this world now.

You know you're buying two copies.

 

[Zornack]

It should be Rockstar's responsibility as an industry leader to elevate the medium, though.

They are elevating the medium, just not in the ways you want. That doesn't mean they're not elevating the medium.

 

[ChawlieTheFair]

He's not asking, he's implying this is an imperative.

Yes, I believe once you begin telling people what they should or shouldn't create, and start talking about how possible it all is, and going off about elevating the medium, then, if you believe that strongly in what you preach, you absolutely should try your hand at game development.

Think of it as constructive criticism. I don't know much about broadway plays, but I could definately tell a director of one what I think I would like more about their play if it was "x" or "y".

 

[BiGBoSSMk23]

So if you believe there is moral responsibility to make games like you describe, and deem it not impossible, why are you not making said games?

Isn't the "why don't you go make games/movies Mr. Critical Consumer?" reply heavily frowned upon around here?

They are elevating the medium, just not in the ways you want. That doesn't mean they're not elevating the medium.

Yeah, no doubt they are, but only mechanically.

But when games become so mechanically adept, it seems relatively irresponsible to leave the storytelling and characterization aspects so poorly thought out.

 

[BiGBoSSMk23]

Shit, DP.

 

[ViviOggi]

Imagine if Rockstar combined with Bioware.

God no their writing is already bad enough

 

[ChawlieTheFair]

Isn't the "why don't you go make games/movies Mr. Critical Consumer?" reply heavily frowned upon around here?



Yeah, no doubt they are, but only mechanically.

But when games become so mechanically adept, it seems relatively irresponsible to leave the storytelling and characterization aspects so poorly thought out.

Well you think they are poorly thought out. As a genuine question what is your opinion on ultra-linear games like Uncharted? Fairly universally praised for characterization and storytelling.

 

[BiGBoSSMk23]

Well you think they are poorly thought out. As a genuine question what is your opinion on ultra-linear games like Uncharted? Fairly universally praised for characterization and storytelling.

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.

God no their writing is already bad enough

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.

 

[John Kowalski]

Because what you consider higher "artistry" someone else may not. It's all just opinion. "There is exponentially more value in gameplay and narrative than there is in techinal proficiency". Says who? you? Regardless, technical proficiency can often help with gameplay or the higher "experience".

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.

There has never been a time in the medium, ever, as focused on meaningful, enriching experiences as right now.

This is GTA. Not everything has to be a Never Alone or a Gone Home or an Entwined or a Limbo or even a Rayman Legends.

There's room for every kind of game and every kind of player.

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?

 

[Krejlooc]

Isn't the "why don't you go make games/movies Mr. Critical Consumer?" reply heavily frowned upon around here?

As a reply to "this sucks" maybe. As a response to a call to social imperatives, no. I'll say it again - if you feel this strongly about the medium to the point where you'd call making such games a responsibility, then you should make the games yourself.

This isnt a "I bet you cant make a game, so shut up" challenge. Its not like I just challenged you to play in an nba all star game. "Make the game you feel a responsibility to make" isnt an outlandish request.

 

[Oersted]

GTA growing up would be cool.

Doesn't look like the appropiate title for this thread... people are going to answer just to the title alone. I agree with the OP, there should be better storytelling in this type of "cinematic" games.

Under which circumstance would that be not the case?

 

[BiGBoSSMk23]

As a reply to "this sucks" maybe. As a response to a call to social imperatives, no. I'll say it again - if you feel this strongly about the medium to the point where you'd call making such games a responsibility, then you should make the games yourself.

This isnt a "I bet you cant make a game, so shut up" challenge. Its not like I just challenged you to play in an nba all star game. "Make the game you feel a responsibility to make" isnt an outlandish request.

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.

 

[Omnipunctual Godot]

Why am I playing as the guy that holds a woman hostage against a battalion of state troopers after blowing up a bank?

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.