Support NeoGAF

[Lethe82]

Yeah I wouldn't say that subtlety or the degree of crassness necessarily makes something good or bad satire.

 

[Riposte]

A piece created to elicit an emotional or intellectual response that helps define what it means to be human, and that successfully on a personal level adds to our understanding of either ourselves, our society or the culture we live in.

Unsurprisingly contrived and aimless definition. This line of thinking basically says the highest art is non-fiction and fully educational. This is because compared to philosophy, psychology, sociology, etc. (and above all else, real life), movies and novels, let alone pictures and music, are total shit at "defining what it means to be human" (lol) and so on. The effectiveness of the latter in this way is relative to the lack of experience with the former. Trite and watered down in their ideas (doesn't matter how many Oscars it wins or how much European critics fap to it) while preoccupied with crafting sensational/emotional artificial scenarios (which are increasingly complex with increasingly complex mediums) - an inherently pseudo intellectual method. This route basically amounts to the debasement of the craft and response to these elaborate sensations in the hopes of appearing more important (pretentious) and "helpful" (moralistic); so the greatest art (what is "mature") now consists of basic yet hazy, Christian Humanist-approved lessons dressed up so you don't get bored.

The initial flaw here is that with this definition you can't tell apart a piece of art versus a captivating news article or philosophical writing (or general life experience).

EDIT: Dear defenders of videogames (such as those on the first page), rather than saying "videogames are art", you should instead say "nothing is art" (or "art is nothing"). One reason for this is that the definition of art is so poorly defined due its nonsensical roots that at the end of the day you are probably (knowingly perhaps) saying something you don't even fully understand (at best saying "you know that vague, prestigious label we put on movies? Well because videogames and movies are similar enough as activities, you have to put it on videogames too"). More to the point though, in the case of the pseudo intellectual process I described above, videogames are at a great disadvantage: their complexity makes them the worse vehicles for pseudo intellectualism (which is basically why Ebert said they weren't art, nevermind movies are the second worse at this). Once you stop chasing the "art" scam (the attempt elevate certain types of entertainment based on non-entertainment factors so as to grant more status to their creators and supporters), the immense value of videogames becomes unavoidably obvious. Of course, that value should already be clear to anyone who plays them, but now you can say it without feeling guilty and stupid in the company of your inner activist and hipster. However, the trade-off is that you no longer get to feel "important" for playing (and making and praising) those special "life-changing" videogames (movies, etc).

 

[Octavia]

Definitely interested in playing GTAV, but I don't want to touch the story with a 10 foot pole.

 

[Fbh]

No.

They should do whatever they feel like doing.
If people don't like it they are free to not buy the game.

 

[MormaPope]

Unsurprisingly contrived and aimless definition. This line of thinking basically says the highest art is non-fiction and fully educational. This is because compared to philosophy, psychology, sociology, etc. (and above all else, real life), movies and novels, let alone pictures and music, are total shit at "defining what it means to be human" (lol) and so on. The effectiveness of the latter in this way is relative to the lack of experience with the former. Trite and watered down in their ideas (doesn't matter how many Oscars it wins or how much European critics fap to it) while preoccupied with crafting sensational/emotional artificial scenarios (which are increasingly complex with increasingly complex mediums) - an inherently pseudo intellectual method. This route basically amounts to the debasement of the craft and response to these elaborate sensations in the hopes of appearing more important (pretentious) and "helpful" (moralistic); so the greatest art (what is "mature") now consists of basic yet hazy, Christian Humanist-approved lessons dressed up so you don't get bored.

The initial flaw here is that with this definition you can't tell apart a piece of art versus a captivating news article or philosophical writing (or general life experience).

EDIT: Dear defenders of videogames (such as those on the first page), rather than saying "videogames are art", you should instead say "nothing is art" (or "art is nothing"). One reason for this is that the definition of art is so poorly defined due its nonsensical roots that at the end of the day you are probably (knowingly perhaps) saying something you don't even fully understand (at best saying "you know that vague, prestigious label we put on movies? Well because videogames and movies are similar enough as activities, you have to put it on videogames too"). More to the point though, in the case of the pseudo intellectual process I described above, videogames are at a great disadvantage: their complexity makes them the worse vehicles for pseudo intellectualism (which is basically why Ebert said they weren't art, nevermind movies are the second worse at this). Once you stop chasing the "art" scam (the attempt elevate certain types of entertainment based on non-entertainment factors so as to grant more status to their creators and supporters), the immense value of videogames becomes unavoidably obvious. Of course, that value should be clear to anyone who plays them, but now you can say it without feeling guilty and stupid versus your inner activist and hipster. However, the trade-off is that you no longer get to feel "important" for playing (and making and praising) those special "life-changing" videogames.

Excellent post, as usual.

Something I've also noticed, people are usually unwilling to interpret videogames that don't force interpretation upon the player. Meaning and context are only applied when the majority of players get whacked in the face with those elements. People criticize this medium all the time for the lack of subtlety, yet videogames are often created so the player can piece themes or concepts together with absolutely no hand holding.

People like to be told, either through actual dialog or context, that something really important is happening in front of them. Rather than trying to discover something important for themselves.

 

[saunderez]

Definitely interested in playing GTAV, but I don't want to touch the story with a 10 foot pole.

What are you afraid of? At its heart it's just a story about a man who tries to escape his past and fails (the reoccurring theme for GTA) . In the process he drags a young man trying to avoid a life of crime down with him and reunites with an old friend. It might not be an Oscar winning story but it's perfectly serviceable.

 

[FreezerGeezer]

Not at all.

Thoroughly enjoyed the story and characters, just take them as they are, over the top for an over the top game.

 

[njean777]

Given you're the second person to make this strawman - I DO like GTA games, they are NOT art - I can only assume that to you Art = "things I like"?

Because there's your problem.



Yes, do you understand the categorisation of "Fine Art"?
It doesn't mean "art that is fine with me".



Attention people that think GTA is art: you can't have it both ways.
You don't get to declare GTA a work of art while simultaneously declaring it uncriticisable for its immature and explicitly commercial tone because "its just a game".

Its either a work of art and as such entirely fair game for having a critical eye turned upon it - a critical eye that doesn't have to work very hard to absolutely rip it to shreds - or its just dumb pop-culture entertainment, in which case stop fucking calling it art.

Unsurprisingly contrived and aimless definition. This line of thinking basically says the highest art is non-fiction and fully educational. This is because compared to philosophy, psychology, sociology, etc. (and above all else, real life), movies and novels, let alone pictures and music, are total shit at "defining what it means to be human" (lol) and so on. The effectiveness of the latter in this way is relative to the lack of experience with the former. Trite and watered down in their ideas (doesn't matter how many Oscars it wins or how much European critics fap to it) while preoccupied with crafting sensational/emotional artificial scenarios (which are increasingly complex with increasingly complex mediums) - an inherently pseudo intellectual method. This route basically amounts to the debasement of the craft and response to these elaborate sensations in the hopes of appearing more important (pretentious) and "helpful" (moralistic); so the greatest art (what is "mature") now consists of basic yet hazy, Christian Humanist-approved lessons dressed up so you don't get bored.

The initial flaw here is that with this definition you can't tell apart a piece of art versus a captivating news article or philosophical writing (or general life experience).

EDIT: Dear defenders of videogames (such as those on the first page), rather than saying "videogames are art", you should instead say "nothing is art" (or "art is nothing"). One reason for this is that the definition of art is so poorly defined due its nonsensical roots that at the end of the day you are probably (knowingly perhaps) saying something you don't even fully understand (at best saying "you know that vague, prestigious label we put on movies? Well because videogames and movies are similar enough as activities, you have to put it on videogames too"). More to the point though, in the case of the pseudo intellectual process I described above, videogames are at a great disadvantage: their complexity makes them the worse vehicles for pseudo intellectualism (which is basically why Ebert said they weren't art, nevermind movies are the second worse at this). Once you stop chasing the "art" scam (the attempt elevate certain types of entertainment based on non-entertainment factors so as to grant more status to their creators and supporters), the immense value of videogames becomes unavoidably obvious. Of course, that value should already be clear to anyone who plays them, but now you can say it without feeling guilty and stupid in the company of your inner activist and hipster. However, the trade-off is that you no longer get to feel "important" for playing (and making and praising) those special "life-changing" videogames (movies, etc).

It is Kitsch, that is all it is. A low art form sure. Some may argue that Kitsch isn't art, but that is an argument for another thread.

 

[Lethe82]

Unsurprisingly contrived and aimless definition. This line of thinking basically says the highest art is non-fiction and fully educational. This is because compared to philosophy, psychology, sociology, etc. (and above all else, real life), movies and novels, let alone pictures and music, are total shit at "defining what it means to be human" (lol) and so on. The effectiveness of the latter in this way is relative to the lack of experience with the former. Trite and watered down in their ideas (doesn't matter how many Oscars it wins or how much European critics fap to it) while preoccupied with crafting sensational/emotional artificial scenarios (which are increasingly complex with increasingly complex mediums) - an inherently pseudo intellectual method. This route basically amounts to the debasement of the craft and response to these elaborate sensations in the hopes of appearing more important (pretentious) and "helpful" (moralistic); so the greatest art (what is "mature") now consists of basic yet hazy, Christian Humanist-approved lessons dressed up so you don't get bored.

The initial flaw here is that with this definition you can't tell apart a piece of art versus a captivating news article or philosophical writing (or general life experience).

EDIT: Dear defenders of videogames (such as those on the first page), rather than saying "videogames are art", you should instead say "nothing is art" (or "art is nothing"). One reason for this is that the definition of art is so poorly defined due its nonsensical roots that at the end of the day you are probably (knowingly perhaps) saying something you don't even fully understand (at best saying "you know that vague, prestigious label we put on movies? Well because videogames and movies are similar enough as activities, you have to put it on videogames too"). More to the point though, in the case of the pseudo intellectual process I described above, videogames are at a great disadvantage: their complexity makes them the worse vehicles for pseudo intellectualism (which is basically why Ebert said they weren't art, nevermind movies are the second worse at this). Once you stop chasing the "art" scam (the attempt elevate certain types of entertainment based on non-entertainment factors so as to grant more status to their creators and supporters), the immense value of videogames becomes unavoidably obvious. Of course, that value should already be clear to anyone who plays them, but now you can say it without feeling guilty and stupid in the company of your inner activist and hipster. However, the trade-off is that you no longer get to feel "important" for playing (and making and praising) those special "life-changing" videogames (movies, etc).

This is an excellent post.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

Because of the same reason you would keep it the way it is.

This is a false equivalence. You aren't simply saying that you want GTA to fit your tastes, you're saying Rockstar is being morally irresponsible by not doing so.

 

[Dommo]

Unsurprisingly contrived and aimless definition. This line of thinking basically says the highest art is non-fiction and fully educational. This is because compared to philosophy, psychology, sociology, etc. (and above all else, real life), movies and novels, let alone pictures and music, are total shit at "defining what it means to be human" (lol) and so on. The effectiveness of the latter in this way is relative to the lack of experience with the former. Trite and watered down in their ideas (doesn't matter how many Oscars it wins or how much European critics fap to it) while preoccupied with crafting sensational/emotional artificial scenarios (which are increasingly complex with increasingly complex mediums) - an inherently pseudo intellectual method. This route basically amounts to the debasement of the craft and response to these elaborate sensations in the hopes of appearing more important (pretentious) and "helpful" (moralistic); so the greatest art (what is "mature") now consists of basic yet hazy, Christian Humanist-approved lessons dressed up so you don't get bored.

The initial flaw here is that with this definition you can't tell apart a piece of art versus a captivating news article or philosophical writing (or general life experience).

EDIT: Dear defenders of videogames (such as those on the first page), rather than saying "videogames are art", you should instead say "nothing is art" (or "art is nothing"). One reason for this is that the definition of art is so poorly defined due its nonsensical roots that at the end of the day you are probably (knowingly perhaps) saying something you don't even fully understand (at best saying "you know that vague, prestigious label we put on movies? Well because videogames and movies are similar enough as activities, you have to put it on videogames too"). More to the point though, in the case of the pseudo intellectual process I described above, videogames are at a great disadvantage: their complexity makes them the worse vehicles for pseudo intellectualism (which is basically why Ebert said they weren't art, nevermind movies are the second worse at this). Once you stop chasing the "art" scam (the attempt elevate certain types of entertainment based on non-entertainment factors so as to grant more status to their creators and supporters), the immense value of videogames becomes unavoidably obvious. Of course, that value should already be clear to anyone who plays them, but now you can say it without feeling guilty and stupid in the company of your inner activist and hipster. However, the trade-off is that you no longer get to feel "important" for playing (and making and praising) those special "life-changing" videogames (movies, etc).

I do like a lot of what's here but some of it doesn't ring true. Firstly, I'm just gonna dump the term 'art'. The word, as you've explained, is at this point useless and near meaningless. Absolutely there's a wide range of self-serving, self-indulgent, pretentious, useless, vapid works across every medium. But I think you're selling films (and by extension, games) short if you honestly believe they're ultimately only useful as entertainment - as a hobby or a pastime. One to not think too hard or critically about.

And so while the above definition of art and whether these works fall neatly into that definition is somewhat flawed, I'll put forth instead something slightly different:

Storytelling's (I'll keep things relatively specific - I don't pretend to know a whole lot about music or fine art etc) primary function is one that isn't available in any other medium. You're right that films can't hope to supply us with the information, knowledge or arguments that a well written essay could. I suppose they're "pseudo-intellectual" in that regard. But that's not where film shines. It's not the reason we go to the movies. Film can't hope to find truth in logic, mathematics or statistics. Film's truth is revealed through emotion. This is how storytelling greatly benefits society as a whole. We are convinced of something through the undeniable truth of emotion. When you cry while watching a film, the film has forced you into a state of consideration about something. You're reflecting on the themes of the film and coming to your own conclusions about something, sometimes to profound effect.

You can read that there were 15,000 deaths on D-Day, and that sounds pretty shitty, but when you dramatize it with storytelling in something like Saving Private Ryan, it becomes a haunting, horrific, terrifying, potent moment of hell, one that rings truer than a description ever could.

Storytelling's primary function is to supply the viewer with experience through emotion so they can better understand and digest their own lives. This is absolutely happening with every single decent film you watch, even if it's very little. It's not a matter of supplying you with facts or philosophical musings. It can, but it's not primary. It's not even a matter of "defining what it is to be human." You can't hope to do that in any one film - probably not even with all the films in the world. But it's a tool for humans to better digest and collate their lives.

A story could present an experience that hits close to home - with the omniscient power of consuming the work as an outsider, we get a more objective view of the situation, and can come to a (hopefully) more balanced conclusion - a mirror on your own life. Or it could present an experience that you can't possibly hope to experience in your everyday life. You're being given fresh experience through that emotion and can now, even if it's the smallest amount, more clearly understand your place in the world (The Wire - I have now felt what it's like to be rejected by the rest of society and deemed fit for one thing and one thing only before I even got a chance to pick something. Thanks to my real world socio-economic state, this has never been an issue for me, but The Wire gives me that fresh experience. Once again, this isn't something that could be effectively communicated in an essay - it's an emotional experience. I'm being convinced through emotion).

Do you see how this is an extremely versatile and valuable tool for society?

A concept that can be (hopefully) implemented in video games as well. It really shouldn't be any different. Video games just have another (admittedly large) dimension of complexity to them - interaction. But this is just another (mostly untapped) tool that could be used to profound effect. It doesn't have to be something that's self-satisfying/important/indulgent. It's just another level to give the consumer a way to have a more potent emotional experience. And with interaction? What a potency it could have.

 

[BiGBoSSMk23]

This is a false equivalence. You aren't simply saying that you want GTA to fit your tastes, you're saying Rockstar is being morally irresponsible by not doing so.

That's a wildly inaccurate assumption of what I meant with this thread's title. If you had bothered to read my posts carefully you could have put together that I don't have anything against the morality of Rockstar. That is completely besides the point. I was not accusing them of desecrating the world I live in because their satirical writing is lazy and unsubtle. I was calling them out for sitting on a financial and critical golden throne and not feeling anything resembling a slight bit of obligation to bring maturely written stories (mature subject matter doesn't necessarily mean maturity) to an industry that sorely needs it, especially in big budget releases. Which spawned a number of arguments within the thread as to whether or not their bloated ego is to blame for their continued use of heavy handed nihilism and lazy satire as an excuse for story writing with each iteration (especially V), and whether it is our own fault for not demanding better writing and dismissing mostly all criticism as "censorship" claims and kneejerk "think of the children" reactions.

You're allowed to think that Rockstar doesn't owe anybody better writing, or that their success doesn't make them responsible for writing stories that fit my tastes. But don't accuse me of moral activism, please.

 

[Solid SOAP]

I don't see what's so difficult to digest about the OP's topic. The world of Grand Theft Auto is full of crassness through its violence, sex, drugs, and other "mature" themes that clearly aren't intended for children, there is no denying that and no one is saying that these things shouldn't be taken away. However, given the budget and scope of each game, how much money is poured in to give it the greatest graphics, selection of music, physics, etc given the scope of the game, it's not a ludicrous proposition to see through that that budget be used to create a story more complex than "Revenge! Kill! Tits! Money! Angry! Pseudo-drama!"

I love GTA V. I think the world Rockstar created is breathtaking to watch simply exist, and fun as hell to explore and cause havok in. They've created a world that's actually pretty damn funny to see satirize our own, but that humor and wit is not properly reflected in the writing of the game's story. GTA V starts off nowhere, and goes nowhere. Character motivations are two-dementional, side characters are often annoying and provide nothing of worth other than giving you reasons to hate them. That's not satire, it's just poor writing.

A game that deems itself mature should have the ability to actually tell a mature story.

Let's take Breaking Bad for example, regarding mature story-telling. Michael DeSanta is a character that had the potential to be one similar to Walt: A father in the drug/crime game, looking for reasons to either stay in it and abandon his family or escape it to better his family (fyi I know that's know the point of BB and there's much more to it and Walt, but bare with me). Walter is a complex character whose actions and thoughts can be perceived in a myriad of different ways. Throughout the story he gets engaged in drugs, violence, sex, etc., all of which are used to better tell the story at hand. Drugs, sex, and violence in the world of Grand Theft Auto, however, are simply used for the titilation of the player, usually pretty ignorantly.

Now, does a video game, especially one with as crazy a world as GTA's, need to tell a serious storyline that truly makes you feel the weight of your actions when you kill a man or smoke pot in your son's room? No. But that doesn't excuse the fact that the satire of the game's world has the subtly of a sledgehammer, characters/moments in the game have a greater chance of being found funny and entertaining by a 6 year old than a 26 year-old (Trevor showing people his penis and butt... making Lazlo take his pants off and taking a picture...). The 3-character concept had great potential to explore the minds of 3 different criminals, either in a comical way or realistic and thought-provoking way. The game attempted to do a little bit of both and found itself in an awkward position where almost every character is unlikable and you really just don't want to hear anything they have to say, ever.

Funny caricatures to play in the game's world, yes. I like how each character was written with the gameplay in mind for once: Franklin being a repo-man makes you want to steal more cars as him, Trevor being a maniac makes you want to go on crazy sprees with him, and Michael being a mentally unstable ex-con artist makes you want to do a little bit of both. But the story is just silly and sophomoric, making me not give a shit about them or anyone in the game unless I'm exploring Los Santos and ignoring any bit of character development and story progression they attempted to have me choke down.

 

[BiGBoSSMk23]

I don't see what's so difficult to digest about the OP's topic. The world of Grand Theft Auto is full of crassness through its violence, sex, drugs, and other "mature" themes that clearly aren't intended for children, there is no denying that and no one is saying that these things shouldn't be taken away. However, given the budget and scope of each game, how much money is poured in to give it the greatest graphics, selection of music, physics, etc given the scope of the game, it's not a ludicrous proposition to see through that that budget be used to create a story more complex than "Revenge! Kill! Tits! Money! Angry! Pseudo-drama!"

I love GTA V. I think the world Rockstar created is breathtaking to watch simply exist, and fun as hell to explore and cause havok in. They've created a world that's actually pretty damn funny to see satirize our own, but that humor and wit is not properly reflected in the writing of the game's story. GTA V starts off nowhere, and goes nowhere. Character motivations are two-dementional, side characters are often annoying and provide nothing of worth other than giving you reasons to hate them. That's not satire, it's just poor writing.

A game that deems itself mature should have the ability to actually tell a mature story.

Cool, you're like the third person to fully understand what I meant in the last 10 pages.

 

[wcoreysmith]

Uh? Fuck no?

 

[UrbanRats]

Unsurprisingly contrived and aimless definition. This line of thinking basically says the highest art is non-fiction and fully educational. This is because compared to philosophy, psychology, sociology, etc. (and above all else, real life), movies and novels, let alone pictures and music, are total shit at "defining what it means to be human" (lol) and so on. The effectiveness of the latter in this way is relative to the lack of experience with the former. Trite and watered down in their ideas (doesn't matter how many Oscars it wins or how much European critics fap to it) while preoccupied with crafting sensational/emotional artificial scenarios (which are increasingly complex with increasingly complex mediums) - an inherently pseudo intellectual method. This route basically amounts to the debasement of the craft and response to these elaborate sensations in the hopes of appearing more important (pretentious) and "helpful" (moralistic); so the greatest art (what is "mature") now consists of basic yet hazy, Christian Humanist-approved lessons dressed up so you don't get bored.

The initial flaw here is that with this definition you can't tell apart a piece of art versus a captivating news article or philosophical writing (or general life experience).

EDIT: Dear defenders of videogames (such as those on the first page), rather than saying "videogames are art", you should instead say "nothing is art" (or "art is nothing"). One reason for this is that the definition of art is so poorly defined due its nonsensical roots that at the end of the day you are probably (knowingly perhaps) saying something you don't even fully understand (at best saying "you know that vague, prestigious label we put on movies? Well because videogames and movies are similar enough as activities, you have to put it on videogames too"). More to the point though, in the case of the pseudo intellectual process I described above, videogames are at a great disadvantage: their complexity makes them the worse vehicles for pseudo intellectualism (which is basically why Ebert said they weren't art, nevermind movies are the second worse at this). Once you stop chasing the "art" scam (the attempt elevate certain types of entertainment based on non-entertainment factors so as to grant more status to their creators and supporters), the immense value of videogames becomes unavoidably obvious. Of course, that value should already be clear to anyone who plays them, but now you can say it without feeling guilty and stupid in the company of your inner activist and hipster. However, the trade-off is that you no longer get to feel "important" for playing (and making and praising) those special "life-changing" videogames (movies, etc).

Nice post.

Some time ago in the "Movies you watched recently" thread, someone defined art as "communication on an higher level", which i very much like.
Granted these threads always go round and round arguing about nothing but definitions for what *is* art, but i think that terminology adheres pretty closely what i consider it to be.
It's communication, dressed up to elevate it above the more simply pragmatic level.
It doesn't imply anything more, and nothing less.

Art in and out of itself, moreover, doesn't hold any intrinsic value.
Something can be art and be a piece of crap, saying something is "art", to me, is like saying something is food, it doesn't imply it being good food nor bad food, just that it is edible food.

I don't see what's so difficult to digest about the OP's topic. The world of Grand Theft Auto is full of crassness through its violence, sex, drugs, and other "mature" themes that clearly aren't intended for children, there is no denying that and no one is saying that these things shouldn't be taken away. However, given the budget and scope of each game, how much money is poured in to give it the greatest graphics, selection of music, physics, etc given the scope of the game, it's not a ludicrous proposition to see through that that budget be used to create a story more complex than "Revenge! Kill! Tits! Money! Angry! Pseudo-drama!"

Throwing money at problems isn't a solution for every issue.
Budget has fuck all to do with a good story.

 

[Solid SOAP]

I truly love GTA V. I think it's so much fun to play, I really do. But it's possible to criticize something you love, no? I love Los Santos, I love the main characters functioning as proper avatars and caricatures that actually make you want to play them a certain way and judge your actions depending upon who you're playing as, I love driving around just to explore, I love getting bored and deciding it's about high time I straight up murder several dozen people then try to escape because it just makes sense within the context of the gameworld... but I hate choking down the game's "mature" themes just because it's Grand Theft Auto and they have to cross boundaries every time.

 

[Solid SOAP]

Nice post.Throwing money at problems isn't a solution for every issue.
Budget has fuck all to do with a good story.

You're not wrong. But you'd think if they had the money to find some of the best artists, animators, physics creators, etc. they'd be able to find better writers.

They have their foot in the right door though, really, I'll have to give them credit for that. I like how you're given the option to enter strip clubs and have sex with hookers, but the game actually tries to steer you away from these things because 2/3 of the main characters really should just feel like shit for doing so. Cutscenes with Franklin's ex-girlfriend telling him to change, immediately followed by a chance to oggle strippers is actually pretty genius. They know the player wants to do these things and puts them in the exact position to do so, but only after being called immature and a loser for doing so.

 

[KyanMehwulfe]

I'm glad I can address both these post at once since it demonstrates why the writing in GTAV comes off as insipid and disparate.

Movies are written to carefully follow a two hour story, and they're scripted to characterize and build a tangible world with a tone that these characters inhabit. In mob/gangster flicks the characters will usually be the personified form of some basic human flaw, a study into what a person behaves like and how they affect their surroundings with whatever vice consumes them, and that is inherently interesting by itself depending on your tolerance (again, the morality side of the GTA debate is separate from the quality writing debate). In GTA, the writing is sprawled out over hours and hours of both scripted and player controlled sequences, but that's not solely why it falls apart. The problem is that these characters are so loosely written and defined that their violent nature just comes off obnoxiously implausible, which some people defer to call "satire", but it's really just subpar characterization. It would be fine if the game was aimed and written to appeal to fully unsympathetic sociopaths, but that's insulting your audience (I'm assuming we're all civil people [civil people able to suspend our morals for the sake of fantasy and art]).

So the other question is; is that the only facilitating mode of writing for a game like GTA that derives its fun from the mayhem? The subpar characters, made explicitly unpalatable to thematically justify the havoc the game's core elements are built to handle? That's when I say, no. It's shouldn't be necessary (or even critically admissible) to have a game in which its cynical social commentary during gameplay becomes pervasive for their character writing as well. And this is the reason why ludonarrative dissonance is not necessarily a knock in a GTA game. There's simply too much freedom to be an asshole (regardless of how the games systemic response systems challenge or "reprimand" the player) to craft characters and storyline that fall in line with those gameplay possibilities.

Now, this is the part where people cite extreme examples to demonstrate why ludonarrative dissonance would be a poor choice. "Oh you can't go murdering people and then have a warm family moment in cutscene ten seconds later". Truth be told, you very well could. Many of those film characters had family values in spite of the atrocities they committed to suit their ends. It's part of the juxtaposition that made them palatable within the films' overall theme and purpose. That's not the only option, either, though. You don't have to go from cold murder to warm family nurturing. It's very possible to write characters with more nuanced contradictions and motives that don't fall apart the second you gain control of them again. Walter White, Nico Bellic, Michael Corleone (to a different extent). These are characters aware that what they were doing was wrong but they were in too deep (for various reasons) to reform and start anew, and there are plausible (if a bit trope-y) stories to be told within those constraints.

Either way, It's not a matter of criticizing the morality factor in GTAV, it's a matter of criticizing the quality of writing that went into that game. And understanding that any opposing opinions on this matter fall under the realm of personal, critical taste, not personal moral compass.

I believe that characters and story in certain videogames don't need to be strictly beholden to the game mechanics they reside within to avoid dissonance. Not to the extent Rockstar wrote Trevor, and to a lesser extent, Michael and Franklin.

I found they made great strides on dissonance. I also found the game to be much less of a satire... it's mostly limited to optional narrative like the border patrol missions or events like the movies in the theatre, the different episodes on TV, the talk radio in Blaine County, etc. Aside from maybe the end of By The Book, there main narrative has very little satire. It also has fewer random surprisingly 'carrot on a stick' characters like past GTAs... it's a much more fully developed story and a much more focused story arc. Quality aside, you can see the intent is much different and more focused.

Grand Theft Auto V fancies itself more a genuine crime drama than past games, and it made efforts to legitimize the gameplay in a manner the series has not really seen before. Whether it's previous Grand Theft Auto games or others such as Sleeping Dogs, there's always a certain level of dissonance that is excused by the story not forcing it. The problem with this is that it feels disconnected from the story. We can say that Niko is a psychopath or Wei Shen is undercover, but there would still be emotional and obviously story repercussions for these characters. However, it's easily excused and enjoy because GTA has always been a joke of a story and Sleeping Dogs is a wonderful first attempt.

With GTA V a different approach was taken because Rockstar is clearly trying to evolve crime storytelling in gaming. This is evident by most every production element from the superb motion capture for facial expressions (Michael in particular says a lot without words) or the superb musical score. But it also tried to address, at least a first attempt at part of it, ludo-narrative dissonance. When it begins to occur, the game actually reacts. Michael says random comments about not wanting to deal with this, and he constantly complains about just wanting to watch and make movies. Your children, actually, for the most part express horror, as do your acquaintances when you hangout off mission. They can actually abandon you if you're too reckless. Rockstar goes to great lengths to justify Michael as not wanting to be the typical GTA character, and it actually resonates in player actions -- I've sampled a hundred or so Social Club members and their crime stats, and you'd be surprised how people play more carefully with Michael. Trevor, obviously, is the opposite. If Michael attempts to address ludo-narrative dissonance with a legitimate story, Trevor just carpet bombs it with a simple solution -- he's a tad crazy. If Trevor is GTA the character, Michael is essentially the antithesis.

We see this attempt to legitimize GTA as a genuine crime drama throughout the game. The story was much more serious in tone. GTA has always been a mess of a story featuring a bunch of random joke caricatures and stereotypes barely connected by a loose plot that serve as an excuse to have you repeat the same 2 missions in different scenery. After the light comedy of VC and SA, we had IV try to also grow up but it mostly just ended up being the same disconnected storytelling with a darker plot and main character. Whereas SA's randomness was at least sustained by its more positive and comical cast, IV's randomness was constantly depressed. Whereas SA's goose chase was buoyed by its vast exploration and customization, IV's was lost in a tight world with characters that were seemingly random burps.

V was different in that it fancied itself as a genuine drama. Rockstar created a story around characters, and the gameplay around the story -- the opposite of every other GTA where typically GTA bases its setting and character around the gameplay first, and then a hodge-podge of a story to try bring it all together. The typical GTA caricatures and stereotypes are nearly (though not completely) muted in the core story, and much more subtle in the side-missions; if anything half the satire in V thinks of itself as social commentary on topics such as immigration, recession, or torture rather than as a 13-year old making jokes. It has its moments, sure, but considering the both how the social caricutures are received sarcastically by the cast and the typically darker conclusions, again it's at least aspriring in a way that's different for the series

Whether it's a good drama or not, I won't debate. There are moments I still cringe but there are moments that I genuinely feel are an evolution for gaming crime drama. Alongside Sleeping Dogs (if GTA is the best attempt at a crime drama then SD would be perhaps the best attempt at a crime film), I can see the genre making genuine progress toward legitimacy. It's not there yet but it's progress. And the topic of ludo-narrative dissonance is one that GTA, more than any other because of its fundamental gameplay, has to address. It could have merely excused it with jokes as the series always has.

V attempted to instead address it. And the results are, by any objective measure, the best produced storytelling in a game yet. I don't mean the best story or best game but the closest yet gaming has come to legitimacy as a stronger storytelling method. This is clear by the gameplay approach and production values of the storytelling. It's a fundamental change from every other GTA. I would offer that based on the tighter and denser story focus with more relevant and varied gameplay, a more genuine attempt at characters, an at least less childish take on social commentary, missions that are also much more story-driven and relevant, and certainly the strongest production values and storytelling (via facial expressions and voice acting) backed by the only full musical score, it's at least aspiring, in a way other GTAs have not, to address these issues such as ludo-narrative dissonance that hamper attempts at genuine legitimacy as a storytelling medium, and help bolster its strides to be fancied a genuine crime drama.

And it's basically a story of GTA the character vs the anti-GTA character... Trevor trying to keep Michael in GTA and Michael trying to escape. Rockstar does almost as much as it can to create a character that believable would still partake in a GTA story yet offers a compelling reason not to behave like a GTA character. Any more or less and it would conflict.

 

[BiGBoSSMk23]

I found they made great strides on dissonance. I also found the game to be much less of a satire... it's mostly limited to optional narrative like the border patrol missions or events like the movies in the theatre, the different episodes on TV, the talk radio in Blaine County, etc. Aside from maybe the end of By The Book, there main narrative has very little satire. It also has fewer random surprisingly 'carrot on a stick' characters like past GTAs... it's a much more fully developed story and a much more focused story arc. Quality aside, you can see the intent is much different and more focused.

Grand Theft Auto V fancies itself more a genuine crime drama than past games, and it made efforts to legitimize the gameplay in a manner the series has not really seen before. Whether it's previous Grand Theft Auto games or others such as Sleeping Dogs, there's always a certain level of dissonance that is excused by the story not forcing it. The problem with this is that it feels disconnected from the story. We can say that Niko is a psychopath or Wei Shen is undercover, but there would still be emotional and obviously story repercussions for these characters. However, it's easily excused and enjoy because GTA has always been a joke of a story and Sleeping Dogs is a wonderful first attempt.

With GTA V a different approach was taken because Rockstar is clearly trying to evolve crime storytelling in gaming. This is evident by most every production element from the superb motion capture for facial expressions (Michael in particular says a lot without words) or the superb musical score. But it also tried to address, at least a first attempt at part of it, ludo-narrative dissonance. When it begins to occur, the game actually reacts. Michael says random comments about not wanting to deal with this, and he constantly complains about just wanting to watch and make movies. Your children, actually, for the most part express horror, as do your acquaintances when you hangout off mission. They can actually abandon you if you're too reckless. Rockstar goes to great lengths to justify Michael as not wanting to be the typical GTA character, and it actually resonates in player actions -- I've sampled a hundred or so Social Club members and their crime stats, and you'd be surprised how people play more carefully with Michael. Trevor, obviously, is the opposite. If Michael attempts to address ludo-narrative dissonance with a legitimate story, Trevor just carpet bombs it with a simple solution -- he's a tad crazy. If Trevor is GTA the character, Michael is essentially the antithesis.

We see this attempt to legitimize GTA as a genuine crime drama throughout the game. The story was much more serious in tone. GTA has always been a mess of a story featuring a bunch of random joke caricatures and stereotypes barely connected by a loose plot that serve as an excuse to have you repeat the same 2 missions in different scenery. After the light comedy of VC and SA, we had IV try to also grow up but it mostly just ended up being the same disconnected storytelling with a darker plot and main character. Whereas SA's randomness was at least sustained by its more positive and comical cast, IV's randomness was constantly depressed. Whereas SA's goose chase was buoyed by its vast exploration and customization, IV's was lost in a tight world with characters that were seemingly random burps.

V was different in that it fancied itself as a genuine drama. Rockstar created a story around characters, and the gameplay around the story -- the opposite of every other GTA where typically GTA bases its setting and character around the gameplay first, and then a hodge-podge of a story to try bring it all together. The typical GTA caricatures and stereotypes are nearly (though not completely) muted in the core story, and much more subtle in the side-missions; if anything half the satire in V thinks of itself as social commentary on topics such as immigration, recession, or torture rather than as a 13-year old making jokes. It has its moments, sure, but considering the both how the social caricutures are received sarcastically by the cast and the typically darker conclusions, again it's at least aspriring in a way that's different for the series

Whether it's a good drama or not, I won't debate. There are moments I still cringe but there are moments that I genuinely feel are an evolution for gaming crime drama. Alongside Sleeping Dogs (if GTA is the best attempt at a crime drama then SD would be perhaps the best attempt at a crime film), I can see the genre making genuine progress toward legitimacy. It's not there yet but it's progress. And the topic of ludo-narrative dissonance is one that GTA, more than any other because of its fundamental gameplay, has to address. It could have merely excused it with jokes as the series always has.

V attempted to instead address it. And the results are, by any objective measure, the best produced storytelling in a game yet. I don't mean the best story or best game but the closest yet gaming has come to legitimacy as a stronger storytelling method. This is clear by the gameplay approach and production values of the storytelling. It's a fundamental change from every other GTA. I would offer that based on the tighter and denser story focus with more relevant and varied gameplay, a more genuine attempt at characters, an at least less childish take on social commentary, missions that are also much more story-driven and relevant, and certainly the strongest production values and storytelling (via facial expressions and voice acting) backed by the only full musical score, it's at least aspiring, in a way other GTAs have not, to address these issues such as ludo-narrative dissonance that hamper attempts at genuine legitimacy as a storytelling medium, and help bolster its strides to be fancied a genuine crime drama.

And it's basically a story of GTA the character vs the anti-GTA character... Trevor trying to keep Michael in GTA and Michael trying to escape. Rockstar does almost as much as it can to create a character that believable would still partake in a GTA story yet offers a compelling reason not to behave like a GTA character. Any more or less and it would conflict.

The problem with this analysis is that you seem to be remembering the game, or simply looking at it through pink colored glasses.

Rockstar deserves praise for indeed legitimizing the marriage of gameplay and mission design with the linearity of the story set pieces. But when it comes to creating satisfying characters, they've chosen to fall flat. And I say "chosen" because they're far too caught up in satirizing modern societies with very little finesse and subtlety, as if the idea of portraying a realistic (albeit grim) look at the real criminal world intimidates them. It's much easier to write a loose satire after building a convincing simulation than to write a compelling story that's not so tongue-in-cheek and then set it within a convincing sandbox sim.

It may very well come down to a matter of personal standards and taste, but I found both Trevor and Michael to be rudimentary and two-dimensional, especially Trevor. And to say that Trevor's outlandish disregard for empathy and generally psychotic behavior relatively redeems Michael's already uninteresting characterization is a bit of a stretch. It's not like all their characters are written by highschoolers, one look at Franklin and you can tell they came very close to writing a three-dimensional character with legitimate real world issues and motivations, but they also dropped the ball with him. It's as if it's the fault of the supporting cast of characters and the sheer idiocy of their motives and behavior.

Right from the opening scene, when Michael is venting how his life choices have washed him up on the shores of regret and emptiness, his therapist (clearly a satirical character for expensive, emotionally detached shrinks) aloofly says "let it aaaall out", cutting a self-reflective moment disappointingly short. They wasted a perfectly good opportunity for rich, savory character development for their tired old satire. And this keeps happening throughout the entire game, throughout the entire progressively ridiculous story, right up until its baffling and deflating conclusion.

 

[Crunchy20XX]

One of the major problems here is parents who still have an archaic view of what a videogame is.

We're currently holding a holiday gift-giving program at my office for less fortunate children, and one of the kids on the list is 10 years old and asking for a copy of GTAV. I'm sorry, but no 10-year-old should play this game, and every parent should treat that M rating seriously. The Grand Theft Auto series has always been one for adults, and V takes that to another level.

I'm 30 years old and able to understand that satire, but I don't think anyone as young as 10 should be exposed to a game like this.

 

[Riposte]

I do like a lot of what's here but some of it doesn't ring true. Firstly, I'm just gonna dump the term 'art'. The word, as you've explained, is at this point useless and near meaningless. Absolutely there's a wide range of self-serving, self-indulgent, pretentious, useless, vapid works across every medium. But I think you're selling films (and by extension, games) short if you honestly believe they're ultimately only useful as entertainment - as a hobby or a pastime. One to not think too hard or critically about.

And so while the above definition of art and whether these works fall neatly into that definition is somewhat flawed, I'll put forth instead something slightly different:

Storytelling's (I'll keep things relatively specific - I don't pretend to know a whole lot about music or fine art etc) primary function is one that isn't available in any other medium. You're right that films can't hope to supply us with the information, knowledge or arguments that a well written essay could. I suppose they're "pseudo-intellectual" in that regard. But that's not where film shines. It's not the reason we go to the movies. Film can't hope to find truth in logic, mathematics or statistics. Film's truth is revealed through emotion. This is how storytelling greatly benefits society as a whole. We are convinced of something through the undeniable truth of emotion. When you cry while watching a film, the film has forced you into a state of consideration about something. You're reflecting on the themes of the film and coming to your own conclusions about something, sometimes to profound effect.

You can read that there were 15,000 deaths on D-Day, and that sounds pretty shitty, but when you dramatize it with storytelling in something like Saving Private Ryan, it becomes a haunting, horrific, terrifying, potent moment of hell, one that rings truer than a description ever could.

Storytelling's primary function is to supply the viewer with experience through emotion so they can better understand and digest their own lives. This is absolutely happening with every single decent film you watch, even if it's very little. It's not a matter of supplying you with facts or philosophical musings. It can, but it's not primary. It's not even a matter of "defining what it is to be human." You can't hope to do that in any one film - probably not even with all the films in the world. But it's a tool for humans to better digest and collate their lives.

A story could present an experience that hits close to home - with the omniscient power of consuming the work as an outsider, we get a more objective view of the situation, and can come to a (hopefully) more balanced conclusion - a mirror on your own life. Or it could present an experience that you can't possibly hope to experience in your everyday life. You're being given fresh experience through that emotion and can now, even if it's the smallest amount, more clearly understand your place in the world (The Wire - I have now felt what it's like to be rejected by the rest of society and deemed fit for one thing and one thing only before I even got a chance to pick something. Thanks to my real world socio-economic state, this has never been an issue for me, but The Wire gives me that fresh experience. Once again, this isn't something that could be effectively communicated in an essay - it's an emotional experience. I'm being convinced through emotion).

Do you see how this is an extremely versatile and valuable tool for society?

A concept that can be (hopefully) implemented in video games as well. It really shouldn't be any different. Video games just have another (admittedly large) dimension of complexity to them - interaction. But this is just another (mostly untapped) tool that could be used to profound effect. It doesn't have to be something that's self-satisfying/important/indulgent. It's just another level to give the consumer a way to have a more potent emotional experience. And with interaction? What a potency it could have.

Boy oh boy, I have a feeling what I'm about to write is going to be a hard read, because I'm really not in the right mindset for this (honestly can't stand to look at my monitor right now due to other priorities) and I know I've probably done this better elsewhere. The problem lies in that what I want to say depends on breaking down so many bad common assumptions (e.g., what emotions are) that it demands more and more writing (and subtly), despite my ideas basically being very simple (or "natural"). I think people misunderstand me to begin with too. Nevertheless...

First, to the idea that I'm selling short films as being "only useful as entertainment": I will delve on this a little more later, but for now I would instead say you are selling entertainment short. That is the whole issue here: the attempt to demean "selfish" entertainment as a concept to elevate "art" used for a "greater good" (e.g., a responsibility to being a Christian/Humanist) or as an avenue to prosper as a pseudo intellectual (e.g., purposefully sharing political and philosophical "messages" in the most obscure manner possible), both overlapping significantly. The whole need of this "art" concept arrives from that attempt (what I went as far to describe as a scam). I'm saying that there is no higher goal for films and games and so on than entertainment and that this is a good thing! Just because I say they are weaker at being vehicles of "learning" relative to simpler mediums (namely, literature, or for poorer learning, fictional literature) doesn't mean they are worse off, only how unfortunate it is to these mediums and their criticism (oh god, the criticism) can't escape the detrimental effect of pseudo intellectualism (where entertainment is no longer "enough", needs a "more", as in merely entertaining, merely satisfying, merely stimulating, etc).

Which is why I go out of my way to lament what "art", this most prestigious label, the one of purported "intelligence" (versus "big, dumb fun" - this is an important consequence to this thread, but I'll have to skip it), has become: a pretty, but dumber version to learn things that have already been said (as in, said in plain English) with more precision and insight elsewhere (and that's when the base isn't obtuse, meaningless distraction, which is painfully the case the deeper and more "post-modern" you go). As a result of (often otherwise very talented) non-philosophers, non-sociologists, non-psychologists, etc., wanting to feel important, after spending their whole lives being told entertainment isn't important, they attempt to "elevate" themselves above their craft (to their own detriment) to justify their life's work (justify their own existence) and gain status. Then it makes perfect sense that we should hold televised multimillion dollar ceremonies to give out golden big-fucking-deal awards to superficial art majors who made a clip of video pretending to be someone much more special than they are and then they cry thanking mommy and daddy and promise to end Ebola. More to the point, it makes perfect sense that videogames totally stink because they can't manage such wild self-indulgence, gamers on NeoGAF feeling insecure and small when they see Geoff Knightly's lesser attempts. The videogame developers who dominate traditional channels of PR suck at auto-fellatio (not too vain for Mountain Dew); they rarely ever promise to end Ebola when IGN gives them GOTY, at most they promise to end sexism in their games because TV Tropes documentaries. Meanwhile games critics are still growing into their destiny of being status parasites... it's an "immature medium" after all.

But putting aside motivation, I see your point. The only thing is that we are approaching it from two different ends. You could even say I predicted your argument and you are agreeing with some of my reasoning. Consider this line in the post you quoted: "The effectiveness of the latter in this way is relative to the lack of experience with the former." The latter being the "arts" (including videogames) and former being fields of study (including philosophy) and above that real life. We can't be on the beaches of Normandy on D-Day and perhaps the non-fictional footage or description isn't something you find as vivid and emotional (entertaining) as the Saving Private Ryan or whatever early Call of Dutys had it. So we indulge in this piece of artifice, tell ourselves it's real enough (even though the truth is inevitably stretched for our entertainment and our immersion limited by the tools), and experience it as if we were there. Same thing with the Wire and understanding that environment. Moreover, you are definitely and unavoidably learning new things (the extent of which is, again, relative to how not well-read or well-lived you are), there's no denying that. It's not even inherently unhealthy or anything, as we all grow up with media and likely engage with a thousand pieces of fiction before our first truly great work of non-fiction.

The problem arises when this inferior substitute process (what some would describe as "artistic" and you as the purpose of storytelling) is deemed superior over process it depends on of feeling emotions from artificial phenomena (entertainment) and when the limitations of it compared to superior processes of learning are ignored (this would put a hole in how "important" these pieces of entertainment are). Your description of learning from The Wire doesn't escape this, it is just another example. You believe you would be "bored" by honest to god thinking and insights, so you need a finely-crafted, exciting "lie" to keep you interested in the "truth". This is a shortcoming on your part, although a reasonable (and perhaps near universal) one. It not that you couldn't draw some knowledge from these works, it's that this knowledge (namely, the insight) is plainly inferior to non-fiction work (what they were no doubt based on), which you go out your way to shit on as being extremely boring (nothing more than statistics apparently - real life is not emotional enough) when that's not the case if you are a passionate, dedicated learner (especially when it comes to philosophy, where the road to insights ultimately leads). I'm going to ignore the babble along the lines of "the undeniable truth of emotion", and focus on your idea of storytelling and emotion and how it is really not so different from what I'm saying, only twisted and embracing of pseudo intellectualism as an end goal, which I must reject.

You are half correct in your idea of the function of storytelling, only with "so they can better understand and digest their own lives" sloppily added on, making it no less contrived than the definition I originally quoted. What's important though is that storytelling is just a tool (among many) to provide emotions. And when I say emotions, it's also important to understand I'm talking about all emotions. That is, all feelings, all sensations, not just "I'm depressed, gibe indie awar plos". In other words, emotions are our mental responses to any experience (understood like this, it makes mentioning emotions redundant and prioritizing them fairly vacant in meaning); so let's say storytelling is a merely a tool (among many) to provide an experience. What we do with that experience, what we "get" from it, is not so much a question of art as it is the fundamental aspect of awareness. Although it make get complicated, I feel the need to breakdown how we see these experiences.

We can say something flowery like "define what it means to be human" (i.e., what it means to be alive, to exist) to make movies sound incredible, but that line applies to literally everything, "man-made" or not. These are all phenomena that we sense. You seem to be making a big hoopla because like any experience, those conceived by humans to entertain other humans leaves an impression that we can reflect on. Once you stop seeing this process as anything special, a matter of all experience, it then becomes a matter of what's so insightful. Here immersive fiction (of increasing spectacle and complexity) generally fails far below writing dedicated to illuminating us in the most honest and straightforward manner possible (and those are primarily based on the thoughts in reaction to being alive, experiencing life - your own thoughts, provided you are both a heavy thinker and one who experiences life deeply, beyond entertaining media or scholarly tomes, are even more valuable and necessary). I suggest that being alive ("being human", such as satisfying yourself) is a higher concept than defining what it means to be alive ("what it means to be human", yadda yadda); the appeal of the latter depends on the former, learning is empowering and satisfying (fun). As might you imagine at this point, I apply this reasoning to the "arts" as well. This should explain why I do not think I'm selling movies or games short when I call them entertainment.

Additionally, you make the mistake of hoping maybe videogames can implement this, as if it is physically possible they do not already. As if there hasn't been videogames that are "potent emotional experiences"; well, you know, only the ones people like, love, and obsess over and have done so for decades. What you are actually wishing for is videogames to be better vehicles of poor, obscure, and highly-specific lessons (a process that I've explained in detail at this point). (And even that is almost true, it's only a matter of interpretation, although they probably do not fit your highly-specific ideals, as one may find their interpretation of videogames too evil.)

It seems you are mixing up insight with intense/powerful feelings (and only those you find "useful"). Yes, being there on D-Day can provide an intense experience (illusion), enough to even feel sympathy for what those stand-ins represent, but it's hardly insightful in itself. It is first and foremost an audiovisual spectacle and a great one at that. I'd argue that, despite whatever anyone says, those scenes were made not to "teach you", but instead so you could relish in pain and destruction, the sheer overwhelming violence of war, perhaps until it sickened you. Because that feels good and we crave it. Sure, you can create a message (and to be clear, messages are created solely by the viewer) that leads to this or that insight, but you've only revealed your true colors by chasing spectacle to do it. Sure, The Wire can substitute in place of more meaningful analysis of the real world, but you went out of your way to chase its elaborate plot and strong characterization. Now we both likely have a high respect for excellent world-building, characterization, dialogue, etc., but I'm refusing to make this pretentious, because those details are actually better than watered down sociological ideas better served elsewhere. I would even go as far as to say that lesser social commentary itself is at best entertaining, just another aspect of world-building.

If you are asking me if the process you describe would be a valuable tool, then you are missing the point or perhaps revealing an inconsolable difference. Yes, propaganda is highly effective, especially when it's propaganda you agree with, but I believe entertainment is better than a "tool"; that one should place the importance of the latter above the former is, well, "the debasement of the craft and response to these elaborate sensations in the hopes of appearing more important (pretentious) and "helpful" (moralistic)".


The whole "fine art vs. kitsch" angle provides little resolution, it just changes the labels a bit. Same vagueness, same forces at work.

Nice post.

Some time ago in the "Movies you watched recently" thread, someone defined art as "communication on an higher level", which i very much like.
Granted these threads always go round and round arguing about nothing but definitions for what *is* art, but i think that terminology adheres pretty closely what i consider it to be.
It's communication, dressed up to elevate it above the more simply pragmatic level.
It doesn't imply anything more, and nothing less.

Perhaps at this point I've written enough to show how I disagree with you, but again, I've probably handled this a lot better elsewhere, so maybe I haven't done a good job of that.

First, pretty much any attempt to define art (although it usually ends up rather nonsensical or useless) is an attempt to separate some entertainment from the rest and due to the value of the art label this invariably means to elevate it over the rest (i.e., elevate it above entertainment). This I will almost always have an issue with, as entertainment is not something we should demean (lest of all for what tends gets pushed forward as art at the expense of non/less-art entertainment: inferior learning, if not inferior entertainment).

Now, the main issue with the definition you propose is that art is communicating in the same way (if not same "level") as everything else. What I mean is described in the paragraph above that begins with "We can say something flowery like...". Things "communicate" with us when we sense them and attribute a meaning to that sensation. Whether it is a painting in a museum or a cloud in the sky (or the fact there are a lot of clouds in the sky), the process is the same. What's different is the context and previous experience, which are vital in what messages we create for it. For communication between humans, we develop a shared language to impose the same meaning for specific sensations (which can only go so far because this process of communication is itself limited - subjectivity). I would argue this is much better at communicating ideas than images, sounds, interactive scenarios, etc., of increasing complexity and spectacle. So, at face value, I don't see what's higher level here.

 

[UrbanRats]

Perhaps at this point I've written enough to show how I disagree with you, but again, I've probably handled this a lot better elsewhere, so maybe I haven't done a good job of that.

First, pretty much any attempt to define art (although it usually ends up rather nonsensical or useless) is an attempt to separate some entertainment from the rest and due to the value of the art label this invariably means to elevate it over the rest (i.e., elevate it above entertainment). This I will almost always have an issue with, as entertainment is not something we should demean (lest of all for what tends gets pushed forward as art at the expense of non/less-art entertainment: inferior learning, if not inferior entertainment).

Now, the main issue with the definition you propose is that art is communicating in the same way (if not same "level") as everything else. What I mean is described in the paragraph above that begins with "We can say something flowery like...". Things "communicate" with us when we sense them and attribute a meaning to that sensation. Whether it is a painting in a museum or a cloud in the sky (or the fact there are a lot of clouds in the sky), the process is the same. What's different is the context and previous experience, which are vital in what messages we create for it. For communication between humans, we develop a shared language to impose the same meaning for specific sensations (which can only go so far because this process of communication is itself limited - subjectivity). I would argue this is much better at communicating ideas than images, sounds, interactive scenarios, etc., of increasing complexity and spectacle. So, at face value, I don't see what's higher level here.

I know many (most?) attach to the definition of "art" implicit value, but i was telling you how I don't, and how the way I define art, doesn't.
I don't think art is implicitly elevated from any other form of entertainment, i'm not even sure how i'd separate the two.

Ultimately the whole debate *is* pointless, because there is no catch all definition, and a lot of things taken for granted as "art", such as renaissance art, were basically commissions over incredibly trite subject matters (religious or epic figures, over and over and over), elements which are frowned upon today.

Also, "higher level" i interpret it as a way to describe that "filtering" that happens, when you create art.
You absorb reality, and you output it, filtered, into something meant to reach other people, it doesn't have to be Tarkovskij, it doesn't have to aim at enrichment, nor carry any particular moral value.

Just an artificial reinterpretation of people's inner worlds, which is a pretty broad stroke.
Art is basically humans expressing themselves creatively, one abstraction away from purely pragmatic form of communication.

 

[KyanMehwulfe]

The problem with this analysis is that you seem to be remembering the game, or simply looking at it through pink colored glasses.

Rockstar deserves praise for indeed legitimizing the marriage of gameplay and mission design with the linearity of the story set pieces. But when it comes to creating satisfying characters, they've chosen to fall flat. And I say "chosen" because they're far too caught up in satirizing modern societies with very little finesse and subtlety, as if the idea of portraying a realistic (albeit grim) look at the real criminal world intimidates them. It's much easier to write a loose satire after building a convincing simulation than to write a compelling story that's not so tongue-in-cheek and then set it within a convincing sandbox sim.

It may very well come down to a matter of personal standards and taste, but I found both Trevor and Michael to be rudimentary and two-dimensional, especially Trevor. And to say that Trevor's outlandish disregard for empathy and generally psychotic behavior relatively redeems Michael's already uninteresting characterization is a bit of a stretch. It's not like all their characters are written by highschoolers, one look at Franklin and you can tell they came very close to writing a three-dimensional character with legitimate real world issues and motivations, but they also dropped the ball with him. It's as if it's the fault of the supporting cast of characters and the sheer idiocy of their motives and behavior.

Right from the opening scene, when Michael is venting how his life choices have washed him up on the shores of regret and emptiness, his therapist (clearly a satirical character for expensive, emotionally detached shrinks) aloofly says "let it aaaall out", cutting a self-reflective moment disappointingly short. They wasted a perfectly good opportunity for rich, savory character development for their tired old satire. And this keeps happening throughout the entire game, throughout the entire progressively ridiculous story, right up until its baffling and deflating conclusion.

pink coloured glasses? that's not a very constructive way to start a reply to my opinion

especially when a lot of your argument is about how V focuses too much on being satire when it's really not in any way. even by GTA standards, it makes almost no effort to be satire. how many times have you played through the entire game, start to finish, all side missions, all hangouts, etc? i mean, your psychiatrist reference is the opening mission of the game -- it's exactly as short as it should be. it would make no sense to "savoury character development" barely 15 minutes into the game... i mean, what? there are still 5-6 optional and much more developed scenes like that after.

i found it interesting you note that F has more motivations than M and T when in truth it's actually M that has the most... F the entire game is basically just motivated by money as a whole, and in part to impress his ex gf. it's not any more complicated than that. M on the other hand has the competing factors of missing his old life, being scared by the old life when it returns, both happy and scared to have T return (in hangouts he expresses that if he had known that if T could return peacefully, he would have tried to find him sooner), saving his marriage and family, dealing with his selfishness (the main topic during exile) and trying to be less selfish, and then finally trying to decide what he wants to do (retire, live an exciting life again, or make movies)... F by contrast is far more one dimensional, so i wonder how you make that argument

 

[Relativ9]

I think Rockstar very resonsibly assumes their audience isn't made up of delusional sociopaths who can't separate the game from reality.

If you want to argue that the context the story provides for what you do in the game isn't particularly well written or logical, then I'd agree, but that had nothing to do with responsibility.

Even if GTA caused the majority of players to become violent, racist, sexist, sociopaths. That still wouldn't mean Rockstar wasn't responsible enough, it'd just mean that the majority of players were complete morons who isn't worth the air they brethe.

 

[apowhungo]

I put the game down and never played it again after the

Spoiler

torture scene.

.

lol