Jimquisition: To Play The Villain

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Sorry Jim, but when you put out videos of yourself molesting Sonic plushies, people are gonna do things like send you Furry porn. It... it just happens bud.

On Topic, I couldn't agree more. I'm a nice guy in real life. And GTA5 letting me explore some darker stuff is cathartic and fun. Where I hated Niko, I'm enamored with Trevor and Franklin. And where I thought the Boss in SR:T3 was an impotent jerk, I find Michael fascinating for his flippancy regarding morality and necessity. Basically GTA 4 and Saints Row the Third let me down while SR4 taking it all the way to super hero level and GTA 5 doing away with the needless pretense have redeemed the open-world sandbox style of gameplay that I'd thought might have run it's course a couple of years ago.

Well Jim, I love you again now.

Kane & Lynch was indeed so great for playing as bad guys. As was Mafia. (And no, neither of these games have a sequel.) I want more games like this, but we won't be getting them since every time they attract a shitstorm of crybabies who only want to play as Good American Heroes.

Goliath100:
I gonna disagree on this one Jimmy, atleast when it comes to GTA 5. Flat out playing the villain is an interesting concept, but looking on what made GTA popular makes it clear the game is only interested in letting the player play as a villain, do horrible things and get away with it. It's not a game about exploring the mindset of a villain, it's about doing your horrible fantasys and get away with it. My problem with GTA 5's character is in the framing. Out of the 3 endings, one of theme have all of them getting away with their crimes. The characters need some ultimate punishment. This is enough of narrative problem that I think The Escapist's review's criticism is not invalid.

a) Do you fucking mind? Spoilers.
b) The fact is that the villains in GTAV aren't just straight up murderous fantasy figures. They're actual characters with motivations and feelings, regardless of the fact that they're irredemably twisted. So what you say doesn't really hold water at all.

And he never said the Escapists' review was invalid. Quite the oposite.

I dunno, but maybe I haven't gotten to the really dark parts yet, but so far GTA V to me is basically a dark comedy. Something along the lines of Smoking Aces or Shoot Em Up. The part that everyone's up in arms about with filming the Teen Star was rather tame compared to the outrage that it's stirred up, IMHO.

I dunno, maybe I'm just jaded, but I don't see the big deal.

Loki_The_Good:
My biggest oh crap what did I do moment in saints row 2 actually happened in saints row three. During the stag generals speech he talks about the whole sordid sequence dealing with Jessica's death and I remember hearing that and thinking "wow that's really twisted ... oh crap that was me." Love playing the bad guy though. Its a weird feeling, you keep thinking "no don't" to the character but then you go ahead and make him do it.

I was smiling during that scene. Not because I agreed with what The Boss did in 2, but because it was great to actually see it portrayed as a negative. And there's so little continuity between 2 and 3 that I'll take what I can get.

The only problem I had was that it was just about the only solid argument put forth by the "bad guys" of the game, and so it came off as a bit dissonant (not in the ludonarrative sense) to have that one stark moment of "what a monster" in a game that largely treats you as hero and victim. I mean, ignore the fact that Gat died as a result of your ripping people off as part of a "publicity stunt" where you shoot at least dozens of guards and cops, Gat is dead, the Syndicate (not his own actions) killed him, and we're going to get revenge because we're THE GOOD GUYS!

Then again, I feel a lot of the half-assed "justification" Jim was talking about in GTAV. In fact, the bad guys in the game do seem to be worse than the main characters. Only Trevor seems to potentially be worse, and even he offers a polemic against torture. In his own twisted way, but still.

Worse, people seem to be identifying with and buying into the justifications of Michael. Guy's a total shitbag who tells himself he has no choice, as he keeps making choice after choice. We as the player may identify with this in a sense because we as the player have to follow his decisions if we want to play the game. This is especially weird in a game with three main characters, though: at some point, you have to go back to Michael to progress the story. Trevor's clearly worse, and Franklin's debatable, but still.

I should care whether Michael finally settles things with his family. I can't. He's a monster and they're all crap.

Back to SR2. I didn't have any "Oh God" moments because I embraced my role as a monster. I was aware of what was going on, but I didn't really care. I play these games for juvenile mayhem and this is the logical end result of juvenile mayhem. It's really weird watching friends play the game. Friends who will chase down and brutally kill someone who cut them off in traffic, but who were made uncomfortable by sending Jessica to her death. And in the narrative, Jessica's death is more justified than some random shlub who cut you off. Not a good thing, mind, or totally justifiable, but on a grading scale, it's far more relevant.

But then, that's an interesting thing in Saints Row 2. Life is cheap, unless it's a named character, then suddenly we care.

Except me, apparently. I'm more than capable of shutting down my morality when there are no actual people on the line. And even then, I often choose to do the "good" choices in video games, even if I know I can get away with the "bad."

But games like Saints Row 2, where the whole idea is to play the villain, I embrace the villainy.

zerragonoss:

DVS BSTrD:
We're always going on about how we want videogames to be taken seriously as a medium, yet we reject games unless we're cast as the "good guy"? How is that mature?

More of the point is that some people do not believe the unjustified villain exists, sure people can get pretty fucked up but their is a reason they are so. Like Jim said villains are often more complex but this is because they need a reason to be the villain, so a villain that feels unjustified seems shallow and completely detached from reality.

But isn't that what we play videogames for?

I was going to say how Niko is more complex than Jim described, but there are enough people that did that.
What I'm going to say is that games are full with well written "professional" characters. Agent 47 doesn't care about what happens as long as the job's done. Joel doesn't seem to be scared or angry at the bandits he kills. That approach is more fitting in games that offer gameplay freedom.

Except that GTA5 does try and make the protagonists come across as better than the people they fight against, even the disgusting and psychotic Trevor. Around every corner you're presented with characters that are written in such a way that you instantly hate them, and root for the three main ones.

This has always been Rockstar's problem with writing. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want their scumbag protagonist, but they also want him to be the lesser of the evils. The only game of theirs where this actually works is Bully, because of its cartoony and more innocent nature. But as soon as they try and play it straight it comes across rather hypocritical.

Gay furry porn

Not Vidya related... so I think the joke falls a little flat. Now if it was a gay furry porn between Starfox and Sly Cooper, or two pokemon (there are doujins for that), that would have been fantastic! Jim is a video game journalist after all, at least give him something he can proudly display with his E3 swag.

I actually feel like villains are the overplayed protagonists in games nowadays, mostly THANKS to GTA. Stuff like God Of War and Prototype put you in the shoes of superpowered thugs. Call Of Duty had a level where you slaughter civilians and a lot of other games try and be all "Morally Ambiguous" and shit.

And even some of my favorite games just make you an overall failure. Every F.E.A.R game ends with hundreds of thousands of civilians dead and the plot situation getting worse and worse. Same with Gears Of War and Halo.

One of my favorite games recently was Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance. And you know why? Because Raiden was heroic as all hell in that. He sets out to do the right thing and kicks tons of ass along the way. It too deals with the burdens of morality and failure, but remains idealistic throughout. And Raiden's goal? It's to save the lives of innocent children. Not "Win the war" or "Revenge!" despite the title. It's to rescue children from a life of torture.

People say they're tired of "Boy Scouts" or "One-dimensionals" but can you honestly name many protagonists that are honestly, characteristically and immutably moral? There are tons of faceless, voiceless blank slates that save the world. There are plenty of people that topple villains in their quest to survive. There are plenty of revenge-seeking anti-heroes. But how many game protagonists actually go out of their way to save people for the sake of helping people? How many game protagonists consciously take the morally upstanding route when it's not the one that is laid before them?

I think a true hero is far more interesting then a true villain. We've just been dealing with lacklustre protagonists for years and calling them "Heroes" for lack of a better term.

DVS BSTrD:
We're always going on about how we want videogames to be taken seriously as a medium, yet we reject games unless we're cast as the "good guy"? How is that mature?

Because in other mediums, no matter how depraved the on-screen behaviour, you're an entirely passive observer and can easily detach yourself from the characters. With a game, you're actively taking part in it, helping the characters to carry out their horrible intentions, without your input none of it would be happening. It's a lot harder to detach yourself from what's happening.

DVS BSTrD:
We're always going on about how we want videogames to be taken seriously as a medium, yet we reject games unless we're cast as the "good guy"? How is that mature?

This is a disingenuous argument at best. You're equating a person's subjective review (and let's face facts here, Greg isn't alone in his opinion) as a call to ban game. Yes, the game should exist and the characters should certainly exist and be expanded upon, but that doesn't mean that people should have to enjoy playing them. To make that argument is no different that calling for such games to be banned. A person rejecting a game because he doesn't like the character path is a perfectly justifiable reason, regardless of the path the character takes.

On another note, Jim actually put out why I personally prefer SR3 and SR4 compared to SR2. In the two more recent SR games, the protagonist and the Saints are presented as anti-heroes. Not doing anything for the greater good persay, but in the process doing good things for the city. In SR2 however, the protagonist is just sadistic and it's a character trait I'm not a fan of.

Red X:
Who are the weirdos sending Jim this stuff? You won't send a card to your Grandma on her birthday but you'll seen Jim Belladonnas fist and Furry porn? Uh, the world we live in! XD

They're called "the shattered" and they listen to Podtiod.

DVS BSTrD:
We're always going on about how we want videogames to be taken seriously as a medium, yet we reject games unless we're cast as the "good guy"? How is that mature?

It's not mature.

On the other hand, maybe it's one of those concessions we've made over the years. As people have accused us of training on murder simulators and playing virtual rape games, we've found ourselves (as a whole) condemning almost anything negative. Games like Postal were tossed almost entirely under the bus because we ourselves abandoned them in an attempt to validate our hobbies. Maybe what we should have done was stand up. But as a new medium, it's hard to stand your ground.

Games have developed along the lines of what we as consumers will buy, and so it's no surprise that truly villainous characters are few and far between. And if this wasn't a GTA game, would it have gotten away with it? I can't help but wonder.

zerragonoss:

More of the point is that some people do not believe the unjustified villain exists, sure people can get pretty fucked up but their is a reason they are so. Like Jim said villains are often more complex but this is because they need a reason to be the villain, so a villain that feels unjustified seems shallow and completely detached from reality.

At the same time, 2/3 of the protagonists in GTA V don't see themselves as bad guys. Trevor is basically self-aware and proud, but he's not even portrayed in a positive light. Franklin is trying to get himself out of the hood, and Michael keeps playing himself up as a victim of circumstance (even though he routinely engineers such circumstances).

But then, SR2 didn't really need a reason for the Boss to be a monster. S/he was just a childish dick. Trevor's kind of similar. They just paint him as a madman and run with it. No real need for characterisation.

Just a minor correction here Jim: In SR2, The Boss didn't kill that gang leader's girlfriend because of a bad deal he offered. He killed her because she had one of your lieutenants kidnapped and killed horribly. She wasn't an innocent caught in the crossfire like the guitarist, she was just as much a monster as any other gang leader in this game.

Don't be like Cyrus Temple. The boss has quite enough damning things on his record, you have no need to make it worse.

xPixelatedx:
Gay furry porn

Not Vidya related... so I think the joke falls a little flat. Now if it was a gay furry porn between Starfox and Sly Cooper, or two pokemon (there are doujins for that), that would have been fantastic! Jim is a video game journalist after all, at least give him something he can proudly display with his E3 swag.

....Is there actually gay furry porn between Starfox and Sly Cooper? Wait, don't answer that, I think I can already guess as to the answer.

On the topic, however; I do find some joy in playing the villain, at least some times. Also, I kinda liked Overlord, although I would have enjoyed it a lot more if he was a lot more evil. I mean come on, he's the Overlord! ACT LIKE IT!

Steve the Pocket:

erttheking:
It reminds me something my short story professor said. If a story makes you feel uncomfortable, it's doing its job right. Stories aren't always there to hold our hands, sometimes they're there to punch you in the gut.

Except the point of making sandbox-game protagonists villains isn't to make the player hate them; it's to keep them more in tune with the sort of behavior players will already be indulging in, i.e. wanton violence and destruction. Once again, Rockstar seems to have epically missed the point of their own franchise.

Yeah, I never really liked the argument that people know what makes a game tick better than the people that made it. Really, just because a game is a sand box and has a villain as a main character doesn't mean that the game is automatically forced to be a wacky fun game. GTA V is dark and brutal, Micheal lashing out at the slightest provocation, and Trevor being an unstable ball of violence that I genuinely feel unnerved by and in my opinion the game is better for it. I like Niko Belic, I like GTA IV, but I won't lie when I say that him insisting that he wanted a nice quiet life made me roll my eyes considering how eager he was to sign up for the next assassination mission. And really, what IS the point of GTA? Just jacking cars and running people over? Not really. It's evolved beyond that.

Watched this at work. Glad I had my headphones jacked in.

I loved the characters in GTA5, and ok, they were hateful in what they do. But atleast they have characters, dreams and goals in what they want from life. Just they go about it in a hateful manner. I think that guy that gave the game a 3.5 is an idiot because you cant rate a game just because the characters are unlikeable. Its fun to play as different people, no one is expecting you to feel what they are doing is right. Its why people watch movies, read books and play game, its for the experience to play as some one that isnt you.

I actually have a hard time playing a bad guy. I don't know why, I know these are virtual worlds, no one really cares what I do in this world....save maybe in Mass Effect or Dragon Age, those are the only games that I can think of where people really react to what you do.

But anyways, I have a really hard time doing something cruel or hurtful. So if I have a choice I always go the nicest, kindest route....most of the time. I do TRY to play the bad guy from time to time, Saints Row 2 and the like, because it IS fun but I always have limits, at least far as the game will allow. Things like "don't harm children or women or animals" things like that.

LordLundar:

DVS BSTrD:
We're always going on about how we want videogames to be taken seriously as a medium, yet we reject games unless we're cast as the "good guy"? How is that mature?

This is a disingenuous argument at best. You're equating a person's subjective review (and let's face facts here, Greg isn't alone in his opinion) as a call to ban game. Yes, the game should exist and the characters should certainly exist and be expanded upon, but that doesn't mean that people should have to enjoy playing them. To make that argument is no different that calling for such games to be banned. A person rejecting a game because he doesn't like the character path is a perfectly justifiable reason, regardless of the path the character takes.

I never equated it to banning games, I'm saying it's a videogame. If we know it's "just a game" why do we still need the story to justify all the horrible things we do in them? And in Grand Theft Auto of all franchises!

What really interests me is when a game, or another piece of media, portrays a character as "the good guy" even when they clearly aren't. Watch Jurassic Park 2, for example, where all of the "protagonists" blunder into the middle of an up-until-that-point successful military campaign, getting a massive amount of the (generally less unlikeable) military bods killed in the process. They're incompetent, they're annoying, they constantly f--k everything up and they show zero remorse for or recognition of the consequences of their own idiotic actions. And these are the guys we're supposed to be rooting for. Yay.

But JP2 was a BAD movie. What about - say - a really good game? What about "Wonderboy 3" on the Sega Master System, in which the hero (so we're told) has to take on six horrific tyrants in the form of dragons? Tyrants that are so horricic, in fact, that EVERY SINGLE CREATURE in the kingdom - and some of the plant life too - rallies to their defence? And what does Wonderboy do to these poor oppressed victims? HE SLAUGHTERS THEM, STEALS THEIR LOOT, AND EATS THEIR HEARTS. Seriously. He even massacres the weather systems (yes, this game has "evil" clouds. Think of that the next time you're out in a thunderstorm.)

So since Wonderboy literally slaughters every single inhabitant of Monster Land that he comes across, who exactly lives in this kingdom that he's supposed to be "liberating"? Well apparently... there's a shopkeeper guy (pirate with an eye-patch. Because eye-patches are always a mark of a character who has no evil tendencies whatsoever.) And a buxom nurse that resembles Darryl Hannah in "Kill Bill". So Wonderboy, the strongest warrior in the land, is liberating it for... those three people? And nobody else? Hmmmmmm. All of a sudden, I am less certain of his intentions.

The moral of the story is you don't have to play GTA or Kane and Lynch to get your fill of evil. If you don't mind it coming in the guise of a cute little anime guy with a sword and a smile, you can get it easily elsewhere.

(Oh, and talking of retro games with unfortunately evil implications, in the game "Urban Strike" on the Genesis you can crash a helicopter into the World Trade Centre to blow it up. Seriously.)

SirCannonFodder:

DVS BSTrD:
We're always going on about how we want videogames to be taken seriously as a medium, yet we reject games unless we're cast as the "good guy"? How is that mature?

Because in other mediums, no matter how depraved the on-screen behavior, you're an entirely passive observer and can easily detach yourself from the characters. With a game, you're actively taking part in it, helping the characters to carry out their horrible intentions, without your input none of it would be happening. It's a lot harder to detach yourself from what's happening.

Yet players don't seem to have problem when they're being terrible people on their own in Free-roaming.

DVS BSTrD:

LordLundar:

DVS BSTrD:
We're always going on about how we want videogames to be taken seriously as a medium, yet we reject games unless we're cast as the "good guy"? How is that mature?

This is a disingenuous argument at best. You're equating a person's subjective review (and let's face facts here, Greg isn't alone in his opinion) as a call to ban game. Yes, the game should exist and the characters should certainly exist and be expanded upon, but that doesn't mean that people should have to enjoy playing them. To make that argument is no different that calling for such games to be banned. A person rejecting a game because he doesn't like the character path is a perfectly justifiable reason, regardless of the path the character takes.

I never equated it to banning games, I'm saying it's a videogame. If we know it's "just a game" why do we still need the story to justify all the horrible things we do in them? And in Grand Theft Auto of all franchises!

I'll take this one... because if the character's actions aren't justified in some way, it's simply a bad story. Good or bad, characters need motivation. Now that needn't mean cutscenes of dead parents - my favorite moments of the GTA franchise have just been going off-mission, exploring the world, and wrecking s--t up. I'm effectively making my own story there. But if the characters have to act in a specific way then they need a reason for it.

DVS BSTrD:

SirCannonFodder:

DVS BSTrD:
We're always going on about how we want videogames to be taken seriously as a medium, yet we reject games unless we're cast as the "good guy"? How is that mature?

Because in other mediums, no matter how depraved the on-screen behavior, you're an entirely passive observer and can easily detach yourself from the characters. With a game, you're actively taking part in it, helping the characters to carry out their horrible intentions, without your input none of it would be happening. It's a lot harder to detach yourself from what's happening.

Yet players don't seem to have problem when they're being terrible people on their own in Free-roaming.

An interesting point I think. Honestly I don't care HOW many cookie-cutter civillians I run over, because they're instantly replaceable. But if a character in a game does something horrible to another character that I know and care about, I want it to mean something. There may be millions of NPCs but very few characters.

Wouldn't playing as a completely irredeemable/one-dimensional mustache twirling bad guy be just as boring as playing as the flawless/one-dimensional perfectly perfect hero?

I haven't play GTA IV, but your description of the character Nico...THAT actually sounds pretty fascinating to me. What he's trying to tell himself vs. what he actually is. The moral good he WANTS to do (or thinks he wants to do?) vs. what he actually does. That sounds like a brilliant way of illustrating how some of us struggle between our good intentions and our bad instincts.

Moral GRAYS interest me the most. Just because you swap from the proverbial moral white to the moral black doesn't all of the sudden make you "daring" or "against the norm" or what have you. You're swapping out one cliche for another. You can be just as terrible and lazy as if you were playing the hero. Probably even MORESO since now you have the easiest excuse to defend mindlessly wrecking shit.

Which leads me to especially disagree with the movie examples you brought up. There's a reason the Nightmare On Elm Street, Friday the 13th, and Child's Play film franchises pretty much IMMEDIATELY fell into parody mode after their first incarnations. There's a reason the horror film genre in GENERAL has sucked so much for the past 2/3 decades. The movies stopped giving us good, likeable main characters for us to care and just came up with doofier and doofier ways to kill people, then came up with the excuse to make every character as DESPICABLE as possible so that we'd WANT to see them get offed. So now the horror landscape is a wasteland filled to the brim with countless amounts of horrible, horrible, horrible movies like that. I may not be too crazy for director James Wan (Saw, Insidious, The Conjuring), but thank GOD he at least brought back the likeable protagonists back into the genre.

It takes two to tango; you can't have a great villain without a great hero either.

GTA is not a series that has ever, and likely will never, appeal to me simply because I can't get past the idea of playing such disreputable characters. I will admit this may seem odd because when I play the board games Descent: Journeys in the Dark (first edition), Mansions of Madness, and Super Dungeon Explore, I am almost always (like 95% of the time) playing the role of the evil overlord, and in all of those games, the rules of the game make explicitly clear that my role is to absolutely murder the heroes. For anyone who plays these games with me in which I'm playing the evil overlord, I make it very clear, especially to new players, that this is the nature of the game and how I shall proceed about it, and I am very, very vicious in my role (I seriously do everything to absolutely _DESTROY_ the hero players). But, we all still have fun.

Now, having said all that, while GTA is not my particular cup-of-tea, I do have to wonder about giving the game a 3/10 review score. If the only complaint Greg Tito had (by the way, I have not read his review; I'm just throwing questions out there for now) that justifies the 3/10 is that he did not like the characters being so despicable, then I would have to say that that feels like an unfair score to me. However, if there are significant demerits regarding the games design and construction, for example, poor controls, poorly written story, poor graphics, excessive bugs, poor gameplay, poor game mechanics, exceptionally bad sound, etc., then there is more reason to believe the 3/10 score, and the disreputable characters are simply the psychological icing on the cake that pushed his opinion further to the extreme to a 3/10 rather than something more like 5/10 or 6/10. Perhaps 4/10 would be a more appropriate score in the later case in an effort to give more proper meaning to the 1 -10 scale of game rating, with scores like 4/10, 5/10, and 6/10 having the meanings of slightly below average, average, and slightly above average, respectively, in quality.

I don't know the exact answer. I need to actually read his review; though, that my not clarify my own opinion much more since GTA is not the kind of game I find preferential to play.

I have seen Jim standing in the world of Saint's Row. So scratch that off the bucket list.

OT: Jim is absolutely right. Much like him, I've always liked villains more than heroes, even when I was a kid too immature to understand good character development, I liked the baddies more just because they were awesome.

image

More games should allow us to play the villains...

NerAnima:

xPixelatedx:
Gay furry porn

Not Vidya related... so I think the joke falls a little flat. Now if it was a gay furry porn between Starfox and Sly Cooper, or two pokemon (there are doujins for that), that would have been fantastic! Jim is a video game journalist after all, at least give him something he can proudly display with his E3 swag.

....Is there actually gay furry porn between Starfox and Sly Cooper?

There's gay furry porn of everything. EVERYTHING... _

Man, I do not envy Jim his mailbox.

I also really like the villain aspect of things. I've played as the hero all my life and I still enjoy it, but exploring a villain or criminal's life is a new look at things. While in my life I always want to be the hero, there is certainly something pleasant about a video game in which I can take any frustrations of the day out on non-sentient 1's and 0's. But yeah, Jim is right, the vast majority of these "villain" games are filled with heroes playing villain dressup who are usually ridding the world of a worse evil.

I love you, Jim. I wish I had some furry porno to send you :D

DVS BSTrD:

LordLundar:

DVS BSTrD:
We're always going on about how we want videogames to be taken seriously as a medium, yet we reject games unless we're cast as the "good guy"? How is that mature?

This is a disingenuous argument at best. You're equating a person's subjective review (and let's face facts here, Greg isn't alone in his opinion) as a call to ban game. Yes, the game should exist and the characters should certainly exist and be expanded upon, but that doesn't mean that people should have to enjoy playing them. To make that argument is no different that calling for such games to be banned. A person rejecting a game because he doesn't like the character path is a perfectly justifiable reason, regardless of the path the character takes.

I never equated it to banning games, I'm saying it's a videogame. If we know it's "just a game" why do we still need the story to justify all the horrible things we do in them? And in Grand Theft Auto of all franchises!

I'm not talking about character justification and your original post wasn't talking about it either. Your original post was talking about how it's wrong and a step backward in "maturity" to dislike a game because the protagonist is not a good guy. I'm saying that it is a personal choice and is no different than disliking a game because you don't care for the aesthetics.

That's one hell of a... climax, you had in this video Jim. Thank God for Jim but save us all from unnecessary exposure to gay furry porn.

OT: After having played a fair few hours of GTA V I can see now that the hate/bile/vitriol aimed at Mr. Tito's review is unjustified. Such reaction is almost always unjustified. I do, however, politely disagree with Greg's review.

If I played a character (or three) who killed people for no reason at all and revelled in it... yeah then I'd be disgusted and be turned away from the game. But Michael, Franklin and Trevor (however depraved their behaviour) are brilliantly written characters with their own motivations. We might not like their methods or goals but they are valid goals within their own personal spheres.

Trevor may be a psychopath and I may have wanted desperately to switch back to Michael or Franklin after the first 10 minutes of playing as him... but sometimes even I find myself nodding my head and saying, "You know what? He has a point." He's a complete lunatic, to be sure, but sometimes he hits the nail on the head when he says something.

All the time these characters continue to make consistent sense within their own world, I'm perfectly fine with experiencing their lives.

Mistake from Jim that needs pointing out before Greg Tito's body turns up with a dildo firmly lodged down his throat.

Tito awarded GTA5 three-and-a-half stars out of five, not three-and-a-half stars out of ten.

I was eating breakfast when Jim read that part at the end.

Was.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 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
Register for a free account here