GTA4: N'Gai Croal vs Stephen Totilo vs Their Readers

[warcrow]

I know this is kind of blatantly bragging on my part, and I hope it's not too annoying, but I got invloved in an open discussion on Stephen Totilo and N'Gai Croal blog's and wanted to try to involve some of the you smarty-pants gamers from here as well. Perhaps not particularly on their blogs--but here. I just love these types of discussions. This one in particular centers around GTAIV--it's highs, lows, and validity in the series.


In short, it started last week with a "spirited debate" singling out their favorite moments in GTAIV and then Totilo suggesting that Rockstar may have taken a wrong turn with the game. N'Gai defends stating, "the developer's refusal to be all things to all people with GTA IV and suggest that Rockstar North's planned downloadable content might be the best vehicle for delivering the wilder ride that a number of GTA fans are still looking for."

They both go on with with these noteable comments from the first two rounds:

• 
  Round 1
  Totilo: In playing GTA IV I was reminded that GTA is at its most fun when it's tweaking, when it has the shakes, when it can't abandon the violence, the transgressions, the subversions of its own rules. The other style of GTA --the one that bottlenecks its story, that keeps Niko moving forward and lands him with a bunch of mobsters, that picks your vehicle for you sometimes, that tries to keep characters consistent and deliver a moral over the course of 30 hours, this classy, more respectable, more constrained, more cleaned up, rehabilitated GTA--doesn't feel like the GTA I've known. Or at least the one I like telling friends about. That GTA has always been there, but it's been subdued. With GTA IV, though, it may be on the rise. Is this the new GTA and one that we want?
  
  N'Gai Croal: I'm a little surprised at your response to the game. After all, you're Mr. Innovation Bias. Shouldn't you be wildly applauding the shock of Rockstar North's new vibe rather than expressing your conservative longing for past Grand Theft gameplay, masked as a call for the subversive over the sublime? Eiji Aonuma does the same ol', same ol' with Phantom Hourglass; you say you're getting bored. Rockstar North attempts something novel; you say you miss the way things used to be. The only thing left for you to do is urge them to remake the previous GTAs using the latest tech, amirite? Besides, weren't you the one who advanced the theory that multiplayer was where we would find the bulk of the sandbox-y pleasures of GTA IV? You want Rockstar North to roll it for you, when perhaps what they've done is given you the Philly and the Purple Haze so that you can roll it yourself.
  
  
  Round 2
  Stephen Totilo: Everyone I've spoken to who has played GTA IV can tell me a moment when their manipulation of Niko through gameplay made Niko seem like a different character than the one portrayed in the cut-scenes. Friends cite moments when the cut-scene Niko--cautious about causing wanton violence--didn't seem like the guy they had gunning down everyone in sight at the behest of either the player or, more oddly, in order to fulfill a mission scripted by the developers. What do you make of that? I see the game developers writing Niko one way in cutscenes and requiring him to conform to a very different script in some missions. You see Rockstar maturing. I see Rockstar creating a game that sometimes works against itself. San Andreas didn't have these problems, I think, because it resounded with the tones of cartoon criminality and non-seriousness that the gameplay of a GTA almost demands of its story-writers. Jetpack-riding and rhyme-book-stealing were zany examples of the sprawl of possibility. Anything could happen and anyone could be around in the game to be part of it.
  
  N'Gai Croal: On the radar, I could see that the drug dealer and two other people were inside. Now, whether it was the tension that had built up over the lengthy, deliberate pursuit of my target or a strange aversion to failing and restarting a mission, I can't be sure. But I nevertheless stood outside the door for what seemed like an eternity, Micro-SMG in hand, steeling myself for the firefight to come. Then I burst into the room and kept squeezing both triggers until I absolutely, positively killed every motherf---er in the room. It was over in what seemed like the blink of an eye, and immediately afterwards, as I came down from the adrenaline rush, all I could remember was the echoing gunfire and motion blurred visuals that accompanied my frantic switching from target to target to make sure that I got them before they got me. The pacing of that mission; its rising and falling tension; the juxtaposition of the tempo and duration of its constituent parts; its blend of driving, walking and shooting--all of that was memorable for putting me in a stunned, shaken, disquieted and finally relieved state of mind.

I made some comments in Round 2 and N'Gai addressed my comments in the final round:

"Commenter HeyMarkD said the same thing even more eloquently, writing "My Niko would never perform some of the required kills in some of the missions. It's a mix up and it's sort of an "Uncanny Valley" in terms of gameplay." I'd never thought of applying the concept of the "uncanny valley" to characterization, but it's a brilliant way to repurpose this terminology."

Totally made my day! :beer: But more importantly I'm curious what you guys think of their comments? I tought N'Gais comments about his 3 favorite moments in GTAIV (found in Round 2) was really interesting and insightful. It's a great read and I hope I can get at least one person here to participate with me. How complex do you want GTA to be? Did you have an moments that moved you? Do you agree with me that GTAIV had sort of an "uncanny valley" in terms of gameplay?

 

[oznerol]

Man, I'm not sure how I feel about discussions like this.

On one hand, I get it - there's this push within the industry to get games treated like art. There's beautiful imagery, character development, epic storylines - it makes sense, I get it.

On the other hand - they're games. I read this discussion and maybe I'm not "cultured" enough, but it just comes off as pompous douchebags using large words and complex phrases to discuss something so completely irrelevant to anything that is remotely useful.

Video games do not yet have the same credibility as movies - plain and simple. These guys are talking about and analyzing the character of Niko like he's Don Corleone. He's not. The story in GTA IV is acceptable for a game, but it's not epic by any stretch of the imagination - it's a hack-job independent film at best. Did I find myself not doing something I wanted to do in the game because I didn't think the "real" Niko would do it? Hell no. Why not? Because it's a game. I'm not reading a novel, wondering what Niko will do next - I'm pushing up on the analog stick and pounding a button so he can smack a hooker around or kill some cops. I'm trying to find and do anything fun with the game that the developers allowed me to do. And so when it comes to playing video games the ultimate question is - is this game fun?

I think the whole problem many people had with this game is the fact that it took itself so seriously - I think the Saint's Row 2 demo did a nice job emphasizing that. Don't get me wrong - I can appreciate realism and subtlety in games - but I can't imagine anyone surfing the virtual web or watching virtual TV in GTA IV for more than 5 minutes before realizing they're playing a video game. And that's the whole problem - GTA IV seems to have sacrificed mindless mayhem (something it definitely had in previous versions) for realism.

Did they have this kind of discussion for Mass Effect - a game with story that was a bit deeper and a tighter link between player and character? That was a game literally designed to be a decision simulator - though the choices were typically whether you wanted to be a stickler for the rules or just kind of a dick. But even with those simple branches, the weight of your decisions in that game had far more impact than anything in GTA IV - which ultimately leads you to a closer connection between you and your character.

GTA IV isn't a choose-your-own-adventure book. You aren't Niko. And really, Niko doesn't matter. If he did, the game would have to be designed entirely differently - you couldn't have canned, scripted cutscenes one minute, and then the freedom to do whatever you want the next. If the cutscenes were altered based on how your character reacts - then we might have something, and then it would be a bit more interesting (and a much better game, in my opinion). Did the game have exciting moments? Yea, some of the missions were a riot. Was it because I was on the edge of my seat, wondering if Niko could pull through and get the job done? No, it was because video game are supposed to be exciting. It's because GTA is all about blowing shit up, because blowing shit up is fun. If you even remotely cared when your teammate died in the 3 Leaf Clover mission, or when Kate gets shot up at the wedding - then you need to adjust your empathy, because I can't imagine how you'd react if something even remotely meaningful happened.

 

[AstroManLuca]

It sounds like those guys wanted GTA IV to be an RPG. Pfft. I'm all about the shooting and stuff. I finished the game a couple days ago and it wasn't really epic or anything. It was just one more milestone. I don't care that Niko behaves differently in the cutscenes than I want.

Also, the most fun I have in the game is flying a helicopter around. I enjoy going on rampages, but exploring is my favorite.