Grand Theft Auto 5 Made Me Sad.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Grand Theft Auto 5 Made Me Sad.

Playing as these horrible people needs stronger writing to back it up.

Read Full Article

Great article. I got the sense of this article from the review and glad to see it fully fleshed out.

Morally reprehensible characters are fine if they are well written and engaging characters. Tommy V and CJ for instance in the GTA series.

Great read Greg and cheers.

It sounds to me like your problem is with the fact that the characters aren't perfect. That isn't to say that they aren't good, which as you pointed out, no GTA character ever is. It's to say that they don't behave in a manner we would like them to. When you mentioned that "he uniformly treats everyone in his life badly, even his friends and mentors," it sounds like you don't approve of his possibly narcissistic behavior. Sorry to break it to you, but human beings are flawed. And that should be reflected in the art they make.

And the point about the terrorist act? http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/postm-body.html

I did appreciate the review, however.

This is making me think back to when I first played through Kane and Lynch 2. About two thirds of the way through the game, I came to the sudden realization that the only goal in the game was for the two protagonists to get out of Shanghai. Literally the only thing at stake in the narrative was the lives of two completely reprehensible characters with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. And I just didn't care whether they lived or died because of it.

I feel like that is the whole point of GTA V.

That an evil person isn't humorous or enjoyable.

It's just depressing.

It sounds perfectly true to the heritage of GTA, Greg. My memories of playing the first GTA at the age of 12 include getting missions over the phone to run over 20 pedestrians in under a minute, for absolutely no reason at all than getting paid for it.

I love articles like this, even if I end up disagreeing them. Just people discussing video games as art with actual emotional consequences, and not just some sort of high-tech toy. As opposed to the statements of a certain gorilla-avatared individual, which just make me die a little inside.

Won't be a GTA game without being flawed in a big way, wouldn't it? Personally I wish Rockstar had gone all the way with the Stock market concept.

Man this game sounds awesome. I can't wait to finally be able to play a true villain.

Popping GTA's version of Steve Job's head doesn't sound like an evil act either, because as mentioned, the player or the character had no idea what they were doing at the time. It's possible to be a cause but not be responsible for an action.

Numb1lp:
It sounds to me like your problem is with the fact that the characters aren't perfect.

I'll field this one.

No. What he said was that the characters were reprehensible and (on top of that) unrelatable. You are grossly oversimplifying three pages of critique.

For my part, I have to agree up to a point. I've seen exactly one let's play episode of GTA 5, and I already hate all three main protagonists and all the supporting characters I've seen thus far. It doesn't look like fun, it looks like a slog going through that story. Everything about the game that doesn't have to do with the story (i.e., just fooling around with the gun and vehicle physics) looks like a blast, though.

--Morology!

I suppose the point could be seeing how the negative qualities of a character are eventually responsible for his/her downfall. But that requires either telling the audience upfront that it's the whole point of the story or it requires masterful writing.
In general though most game developers utterly fail to succeed at this kind of storytelling. Kane and Lynch as a previous poster mentioned.

Now violence is not uncommon in games but I have to agree with the author, it's all about the context. Violence without meaning, setup and merely for shock value fails. Context is what separates the violence and gore of say Evil Dead from Salvador Dali's movie Un Chien Andalou. In one case the context turns it into dark humor and the violence is enjoyable. In the other one of the great artists sets out to truly shock and horrify the audience with a single terrible scene (if you've seen the movie you know the one I'm talking about). Sam Raimi used violence and gore to entertain, Dali used it to hurt his audience. So where does this carry over to game writing. Is this bad writing, a failed attempt to be edgy and shock the audience, or an attempt to hurt the audience?

Dude wrting this article, let me give you some examples:
1. In Skyrim you can sacrifice a best friend (follower) for a Daedra named Boethiah in order to get some piece of armor
2. In Skyrim you can sacrifice a priest in order to become a canibal for another Daedra
3. In all GTA games players go on killing sprees against police, civilians, anything that moves.
4. Niko, a guy who wants to escape crime, kills so many people in GTA IV in missions in order to advance the plot and he's doing it for MONEY, ONLY MONEY, sure he needs it to get a better life and pay his cousin's gambling problems, but it's still for dirty money.
5. I don't need a 5
6. I don't need a 6
7. Do I need to go on?

Killing the guy via phone in that Michael Mission (I don't have xbox, I saw the mission on youtube) is nothing. It's just murder for the sake of revenge. Michael is genuinely moved by what just happened, he didn't expect a hacker to be so violent and actually plant a bomb in that thing. Michael is reckless, but not the culprit in this case, he was a tool, yes, but these things can happen in real life also, people being used for something they don't want to be a part of, so GTA V didn't go overboard with it.

The game is not sick or overly violent, it's what it is. If anything, we as gamers are sick for playing games like GTA III, VC, San Andreas, IV, V. Simulating the life of a criminal is just that, Rockstar did a masterful job, the moral is that in GTA V a white guy is rich and miserable, so money by itself doesn't bring happiness, crime doesn't pay and all that, his wife's cheating on him, his son doesn't respect him and is insecure about himself cause Michael failed as a father and role model, and so on. Michael is a victim from the first cutscene of the game. Is the victim of his own way of doing things, falling into a life of crime, and somewhat enjoying it. Franklin is what Michael was in his youth, a poor kid, wanting a better life (only difference is his black) and Michael relates to him, and as for Trevor, yes he is a maniac, and no I don't know his story yet, but if I'm correct, GTA V will offer narrative and a perspective on why Trevor is the way he is: been in the army, and all that. The chemistry in the game, from what I've seen is great, the morality is ambiguous, the characters are flawed, not loveable, but identifiable, I'm pretty sure everyone on this forum has a bad side to his personality, don't lie. The characters in GTA V are cynical, and I'm pretty sure this is why most find a hard time liking them.

PS: You mentioned "terrorist act" a few times. In all GTA games you commited terorist acts, either by plot or just player faffing about.

M920CAIN:
7. Do I need to go on?

He addressed that point in the article. All the examples you gave are the players choice, they are optional. If you don't like them, you don't do them. And as for Niko in GTA IV, yeah, that ain't great writing either and it received quite a lot of criticism after the initial hype around the game was over.

Greg Tito:
shootings here in the U.S. are frightfully common. I don't like to watch the news; I play games for an escape from all that shit.

Well you know, you could always play those high-quality games that don't revolve around guns and shooting nameless dudes in the face like Portal(portal gun) and... uh... Cookie Clicker?

Eh, I'd say that the real reason for the outcry is that most people who play GTA V don't do it for the story. I certainly don't. When I play open world games, I go out of my way to be the biggest asshole ever, dick around as much as possible and don't get immersed to deeply into the story. I feel that Rockstar tried to execute this big Hollywood crime story with GTA IV, realized that it doesn't work with the type of people who play these games and tried to make it more wacky and violent for GTA V... while still keeping that same tone as that Hollywood crime story.

I'd say you put too much focus on story in your review, but everything that has been said about that has already been said, albeit alot ruder.

Another great read. Skipped the some of the second page to avoid too many spoilers, for when I eventually play this game. Actually this extra article makes me a little cautious about the game now. I know the game has plenty of great qualities and free roaming will be awesome but I do not want to play in depressionville with terrible people that much. It would be interesting if they made the game start right before the crash, and you experience the economic crash, explaining why Michael at least needs to go into crime again. I would have love to see some character development in all three characters. We will see for myself next month when I can hopefully find it for 40 bucks or for when they announce a PC version.

I am curious to know if you played the first 3 GTAs, why were they accepted back then for what they did and are still viable recommendations of good games to play today.

Just look at the intro of GTA 2:

The intro really shows what the game is all about, you are just this thug doing crimes for money and in GTA III it barely touches any sort of motivation for the main character other then money.

I think Greg Tito had very diferent expectations to what a GTA game could be or wants to be, even CJ is a major selfish douchebag.

And I still dont get the part that the characters need to be relatable or that we need to like them to care for them, I liked the movie Pain and Gain and I was interested in knowing what was going to happen to those characters even though all of them were the biggest scum of the earth, I mean, only one guy that shows up in the middle of the movie can be called a morally good or relatable character.

grumbel:

M920CAIN:
7. Do I need to go on?

He addressed that point in the article. All the examples you gave are the players choice, they are optional. If you don't like them, you don't do them. And as for Niko in GTA IV, yeah, that ain't great writing either and it received quite a lot of criticism after the initial hype around the game was over.

Yes and no. The examples about Skyrim do indeed give you a choice, but for GTA itself, you are often/always put in a position in which the only way to advance is to kill. As for free roaming, I bet that everyone who played a GTA game and tried to roleplay killed at least one pedestrian while rushing to get to a next objective, because he/she found it frustrating to drive responsibly in a videogame and speeding caused some nasty unintentional crashes.

In any case, I think we can all agree, that aging is something each gamer has to face. You cannot enjoy the same violence at 30 as you did at 20. You gotta think that something's wrong with a society of people who play a crime simulator game and the fact that we as players anticipate a crime simulator game so much, but that software developer mission isn't a prime example by any means. The whole series can be held accountable for that on the same principles of choice. Hell for choice to really matter, why not have the option to choose at the beginning of a GTA game between being a coop or a crook and advance a story after that choice is made. Would be an interesting statistic on how many players would chose one or the other.

I liked the article myself.

It was a good backup to the review which confirmed my worries about the game.

Maybe it's an age thing, but as a gamer in my late thirties I've no interest in being forced to play as a group of characters who have no redeemable qualities in an imaginary world where every person you interact with is apparently vapid and selfish.

That reminds me too much of real life.

And I've grown beyond the point of buying a game for the pleasure of running over pedestrians.

Each to their own though.

A few of my (younger) mates got it today and already I've been regaled of a great tales of crashing jetskis and killing scores of prostitutes with a stolen forklifts.

I've never truly bought into the idea that protagonists have to be someone the player/viewer/reader can relate to, even in minute ways. If that were the case, there are a ton of characters out there that are good guys that I wouldn't engage in. Besides, I don't exactly agree with the idea that these guys are not relateable in some way simply because they happen to be scumbags. Two of these guys have the very relate able condition of being stuck in a state they are unsatisfied with. Just about everyone I know has had that moment where they were unhappy with where they were. The fact these guys go on to do heinous progressively more stuff is consequential to who they are.

I play games like Kane & Lynch and God of War, despite the protagonists being irredeemable horrors. Protagonists being disgusting men doesn't not immediately equate to bad writing. Sometimes people are motivated for the most selfish and un-altruistic reasons, and sometimes those people come out on top.

M920CAIN:
Dude wrting this article, let me give you some examples:
1. In Skyrim you can sacrifice a best friend (follower) for a Daedra named Boethiah in order to get some piece of armor

You CAN.
This is a CHOICE.
You have an OPTION to do this.

2. In Skyrim you can sacrifice a priest in order to become a canibal for another Daedra

You CAN.
This is a CHOICE.
You have an OPTION to do this.

3. In all GTA games players go on killing sprees against police, civilians, anything that moves.

You CAN.
This is a CHOICE.
You have an OPTION to do this.

4. Niko, a guy who wants to escape crime, kills so many people in GTA IV in missions in order to advance the plot and he's doing it for MONEY, ONLY MONEY, sure he needs it to get a better life and pay his cousin's gambling problems, but it's still for dirty money.

False. Many times he has a gun to his head or a gun to the head of one of his loved ones, forcing him to do the things he does.

Killing the guy via phone in that Michael Mission (I don't have xbox, I saw the mission on youtube) is nothing.

A)You are forced to do it.
B)It lacks context. There is no justification given for such an action.

These are the main differences.

It's like the game telling you "Shoot the puppy in the face, then put his brains in the kitten's food dish.", where there is no explanation given for this action, and no way to avoid it.

Phrozenflame500:

Greg Tito:
shootings here in the U.S. are frightfully common. I don't like to watch the news; I play games for an escape from all that shit.

Well you know, you could always play those high-quality non-violent games like Portal and... uh... Cookie Clicker?

This is silly.

"Oh, is this game too violent for you? Well maybe you ought to play My Little Pony instead, hue hue hue".

Don't sink this low.

Did you ignore the part where he said that he enjoyed all the other rockstar games?

Violence is not the issue. Violence is a means to an end. What mattered to Tito was that END.
The justification, or lack thereof, of violence is the issue.
The context, or lack thereof, is an issue.

Not the violence itself.

Okay, fair points, I'm glad that they were elaborated upon.

However, GTA was never exactly big on narrative freedom. You just had a choice of which missions to do first, and could ignore side-missions entirely.

Worse, the player has no idea what the real culmination of Lester's plan is until the CEO is murdered before our eyes. Duping Michael, and therefore the player, into committing this heinous act magnified the disgust I felt at my actions. "I did that? How horrible!" The shock and surprise served no other purpose than to shock and surprise. As a player, I had no way to prepare for my actions. I had no context to affix the sequence as satire, if that's what was intended. It's a sloppily constructed sequence seemingly crafted to draw mainstream news coverage and ire.

I'm sure it's quite easy to guess that it involved someone dying. It just seems like a typical assassination.

Houseman:
snip

If you'd read the rest of my post you'd have found out I generally agree with him about the story.

But I do agree I misworded that part. I was going for "well, there aren't many non-violent games, and the ones that are tend to suck" rather then "haha go back you your barbie casual".

Houseman:

M920CAIN:
Dude wrting this article, let me give you some examples:
1. In Skyrim you can sacrifice a best friend (follower) for a Daedra named Boethiah in order to get some piece of armor

You CAN.
This is a CHOICE.
You have an OPTION to do this.

2. In Skyrim you can sacrifice a priest in order to become a canibal for another Daedra

You CAN.
This is a CHOICE.
You have an OPTION to do this.

3. In all GTA games players go on killing sprees against police, civilians, anything that moves.

You CAN.
This is a CHOICE.
You have an OPTION to do this.

4. Niko, a guy who wants to escape crime, kills so many people in GTA IV in missions in order to advance the plot and he's doing it for MONEY, ONLY MONEY, sure he needs it to get a better life and pay his cousin's gambling problems, but it's still for dirty money.

False. Many times he has a gun to his head or a gun to the head of one of his loved ones, forcing him to do the things he does.

Killing the guy via phone in that Michael Mission (I don't have xbox, I saw the mission on youtube) is nothing.

A)You are forced to do it.
B)It lacks context. There is no justification given for such an action.

These are the main differences.

It's like the game telling you "Shoot the puppy in the face, then put his brains in the kitten's food dish.", where there is no explanation given for this action, and no way to avoid it.

Well, let me put it like this:
If Niko has a gun to his head he says "yes" but after the gun is pointed away and Niko goes to do what he said yes to, can't Niko just not do it? and go to the police instead or another option? Niko is motivated mostly by money to help his family, the only times he has a gun to his head is: when meeting Faustin although it's a saw to his head, not gun, and the second one is when Packie's friends tells him about the bank job and he has the option to either do the bank job or get killed, but from a realistic point, Niko could say yes and then just go to the police or tip the police off indirectly since he can't go to them without risk of being deported.

As for Michael, I repeat, Michael didn't do anything out of the ordinary in the mission from the article. He just did a favor for a hacker who offered his help for service rendered. He didn't know the hacker was attempting murder, he thought it was something nerdy, a techy revenge of sorts. The guy who wrote the article is more disgusted by the portrayal of killing on fictional national television, but hey worst things have happened in the real world, real gory things. From what I've seen so far, GTA V is less violent than a typical gangster/mafia movie.

The point of the GTA series, especially GTA 5 at the moment, seems to need to be explained. It's realistic satire of the portrayal of criminals and the US American Dream via media and society. A lot of the criminals, as said by the US media, have no motivation to do what they do other than because they are selfishly evil. And GTA 5 catches that media portrayal perfectly, with your characters being downright atrocious. The US American Dream? We have three aspects of that, someone trying to get better, someone currently experiencing it, and someone that attempted and crashed trying to attain that Dream, and that's the same way the US media portrays that as well. You need to be cruel, cutthroat, and horrible to your fellow humans to achieve and maintain that great American Dream, and if you crash because of it, well fuck you you're now trash.

Even then, you have to see how the characters handle the world. So far, Franklin hates his life and wants to better it, the people he's around with are two timing gangsters that keep trying to drag him into their life, causing all sorts of problems when they cause inter-gang rivalries to flare, especially when he has to deal with his only relative (aunt that shows little to no care about him) that would rather see him disappear. Michael hates his life and family, but he's trying hard to at least get in touch with them, his son and daughter at least. He knows he's got issues, and at one point, he apologizes to his son for his behavior. Unable to say much about Trevor, not having gotten to his area yet.

Interesting analysis Greg. It's refreshing to see a game debated in such a specific way without having to review all the features of the game for the sake of it being a review. I'm still interested in this game but I get the feeling I'll feel similarly to you about the characters and setting. Maybe in a year or so I'll pick it up if it's cheap.

Great article, Greg. What I'm getting from you is the sense that Rockstar have moved on from making games that parody society in the traditional sense of the word 'parody', i.e. by making you laugh at absurd characterisations because you can see the links to reality; and are now making games under the postmodern understanding of 'parody', where parody and irony in general need not require any attempt to humour the audience, only to reference something.

This, btw, is a problem not just for GTA V but with a number of different forms of media, particularly literature. As a PhD student in English Literature I find postmodernist literature and criticism the laziest, sloppiest form of theory in existence. 'Cleverness' is continually misconstrued as the ability to cram a thousand references into a text, and your own credibility as a critic hinges on whether or not you get them all. There's no attempt to invoke real humour, only to sneer at everything.

The GTA3 era games were true to the original concept of parody. This was evident not only in background details like the radio stations and pop culture references, but in the overall story and the characters you played. Tommy Vercetti and CJ played straight man to hundreds of caricatures they encountered throughout the story, making you feel like an agent in an absurd comedy. This sense of humour is what made the gratuitous violence tolerable, in the same way that it works in a Tarantino film. Against the backdrop of that humour, you occasionally can look at something and shake your head at how close it comes to the reality of society.

For me, GTA IV wasn't as good because it went in the other way. It tried so hard to make social commentary that it was seemingly afraid that using humour would invalidate its irony cred. Everything was too realistic to be taken as a caricature, and every violent act just made me less interested in the game as a whole. It's a shame that GTA V has gone down the same path.

seydaman:
I feel like that is the whole point of GTA V.

That an evil person isn't humorous or enjoyable.

It's just depressing.

Trevor is the guy all the kids played as when they played the previous games. Not so funny when it's written in, is it?

Master Taffer:
I've never truly bought into the idea that protagonists have to be someone the player/viewer/reader can relate to, even in minute ways. If that were the case, there are a ton of characters out there that are good guys that I wouldn't engage in. Besides, I don't exactly agree with the idea that these guys are not relateable in some way simply because they happen to be scumbags. Two of these guys have the very relate able condition of being stuck in a state they are unsatisfied with. Just about everyone I know has had that moment where they were unhappy with where they were. The fact these guys go on to do heinous progressively more stuff is consequential to who they are.

I play games like Kane & Lynch and God of War, despite the protagonists being irredeemable horrors. Protagonists being disgusting men doesn't not immediately equate to bad writing. Sometimes people are motivated for the most selfish and un-altruistic reasons, and sometimes those people come out on top.

I will start off here saying, I have only watched video's of GTAV, I don't own it yet and have not played it.

I think the point here isn't that they are "disgusting/irredeemable horrors" is not fully capturing the issue. Villains can be great people to play as. The "murderer" can be as an enjoyable experience as the savior. The issue is there is no context behind what they are doing, and their actions/reactions are so far removed from a "common ground" that it (to me) would make it hard to get behind using that character.

Think about this. In Spec Ops, your a terrible person. A soldier who murders a TON of people, uses phosphorous on civilians and generally is just a villain. Yet, as the game progress's you have context and reason to BE that bad guy, because you thought you were the good guy. I have not seen any sort of motivation/context implied in ANY of the things seen about GTAV.

To me, Greg Tito's review/follow up make perfect sense. He didn't say the game was bad. He didn't give it a "1 of 5" style crap score. He put his review up based on his opinions of the play through and how he felt the story/characters were represented. 7 out of 10 is a good score, and across all the other reviews you are seeing people enjoy the same things he enjoyed and question the same things he has questioned so good review/follow up sir.

I was really surprised by the review. I don't really care for the GTA series as a player, but I found it fascinating from an intellectual point of view on how Mr. Tito reached his conclusion.

I guess what this article is saying that while a problem is the characters are morally bad -- its also the game making the player do terrible things with no moral consideration.

Reading this article reminded me of the entire thesis of "Spec Ops: The Line". The player is meant to realize that they are doing terrible things in the game that are just bad -- no ifs or buts, but just bad. And yet, the game is even aware of this as well. It recognizes that you as the player are doing these bad things, and so it will find any chance to scold you about this. I remember there is a simple quote in a loading screen late in the game that perfectly summarizes this thesis: "If you were a better person, you wouldn't be here." Anyone who has played this game knows they have done terrible things, and recognize the protagonist Walker isn't the hero he wishes he is.

The sequences Mr. Tito mentioned here sounds like are meant to have that same realization that the player caused these events, but it wants to pass it off as a joke rather than as a lesson on player action. I guess in some ways that is the safest way to handle this in a GTA games? In most cases people will just run over several people walking down a sidewalk so they can start a chase with the police, and from what I recall the game only punishes you with death by taking some of your money at a hospital. GTA is meant to just be a pointless fun game where you just go nuts in a sandbox world -- which is perfectly fine as "Saints Row" series show. But is it the most morally just way? Could all players feel happy with the actions they do in these games, even when there is no repercussions for playing the game out?

Very fascinating read Mr. Tito. Thank you for this article.

you know there are some closet sociopaths who just get pure guilty pleasure out of being a total asshole in a video game, some people do enjoy head explosions for thier pure spectacle or silliness, i think this game isnt taking itself too seriously and maybe this guy just isnt able to apeciate that. its childish, its immature and its infantile and its what we need sometimes. i honestly dont think its worth it to complain about rediculous game like grand theft auto, we have so many worse things to worry about

M920CAIN:

Well, let me put it like this:
If Niko has a gun to his head he says "yes" but after the gun is pointed away and Niko goes to do what he said yes to, can't Niko just not do it?

Sure, in the rare cases that the gun is pointed solely at his head, and not at the head of his cousin.

His motivation is to get OUT of the "everybody is trying to kill me/Roman" scenario. Going back on his word would only worsen that situation.

and go to the police instead or another option?

No, because he's an illegal immigrant.

Most of these "people are trying to kill me, help" situations are "Because I/Roman did something illegal to warrant it in the first place", so going to the police would just get them arrested and possibly deported.

Plus, the police are obviously ineffectual, seeing as they never seem to thwart any crimes.

Niko is motivated mostly by money to help his family

I don't remember it like that.

I remember that he's motivated to find the guy who threw him under a bus during some kind of war.

, the only times he has a gun to his head is: when meeting Faustin although it's a saw to his head, not gun, and the second one is when Packie's friends tells him about the bank job and he has the option to either do the bank job or get killed, but from a realistic point, Niko could say yes and then just go to the police or tip the police off indirectly since he can't go to them without risk of being deported.

In the beginning of the story, Roman is under attack by people who want to break his knees for the gambling debt he owes. After they kill some boss, their bosses boss comes after them, kidnaps Roman and uses him as leverage.

Rarely is the gun ever to Niko's head himself.

And let's not even talk about "why didn't he do [real world action]" The answer is "because this is a video game". This isn't the point. The point here is that Niko had context given to his crimes by having either him or Roman threatened with death. In the cases where he wasn't threatened, his motivation was to find that guy from the war.

Phrozenflame500:
and... uh... Cookie Clicker?

I'm addicted, halp

OT: Thanks for the clarification, Greg. Now, too bad none of the New Account Ragers will read this.

Master Taffer:
I've never truly bought into the idea that protagonists have to be someone the player/viewer/reader can relate to, even in minute ways. If that were the case, there are a ton of characters out there that are good guys that I wouldn't engage in. Besides, I don't exactly agree with the idea that these guys are not relateable in some way simply because they happen to be scumbags. Two of these guys have the very relate able condition of being stuck in a state they are unsatisfied with. Just about everyone I know has had that moment where they were unhappy with where they were. The fact these guys go on to do heinous progressively more stuff is consequential to who they are.

I play games like Kane & Lynch and God of War, despite the protagonists being irredeemable horrors. Protagonists being disgusting men doesn't not immediately equate to bad writing. Sometimes people are motivated for the most selfish and un-altruistic reasons, and sometimes those people come out on top.

The difference is that a well-written character is one in which the story's view of them matches up with the audience's view of them; in the case of evil characters, this necessitates that they either be antagonists or that the story makes the point of letting the audience know that they're not supposed to root for them (hence the several people in this thread who have brought up Spec Ops: The Line). I've not yet played GTA V, so I can't know for sure, but everything Greg has said indicates that the game's story is taking a stance of "Ah, don't worry your pretty little head, it's all in good fun." Well, no - it being all in good fun demands that the story's perception of itself falls in line with my own, not the story simply telling me it's fine without the context or intent to back up that assertion.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here