Why isn't there a game like GTA V but without the pure Evil?

[Avilan the Grey]

...Seriously?

I feel cheated in an odd way since I will never be able to play this game that looks so awesome, since I just cannot fathom myself playing a game with these kind of characters... :smalleek::smallfrown:

Yes, it's not out on PC yet, but anyway. I keep looking at the pictures of it going "that's awesome" but then I see the actual scripted events, and hell no. First of all I hate games with switching protagonists, I want a single person that I can play as "me". But the main problem is simply that well... If you have seen my rant against Breaking Bad then you already know my issue.

But I still feel cheated...

[JadedDM]

Are you not allowed to be a good guy in those games? I have never played any of the GTAs before, so I wasn't aware.

[Socratov]

isn't that what the Elder Scrolls games are if you run it with the graphic mods?

Sandbox, yes. Action packed, yes. Awesome, yes. Stunning visuals, hell yes.:smallcool:

[Emmerask]

Are you not allowed to be a good guy in those games? I have never played any of the GTAs before, so I wasn't aware.

At the very best sometimes you can be the somewhere in middle guy... most of the time its very much in the evil category.

[Hiro Protagonest]

isn't that what the Elder Scrolls games are if you run it with the graphic mods?

Sandbox, yes. Action packed, yes. Awesome, yes. Stunning visuals, hell yes.:smallcool:

Gameplay's completely different. We're talking traditional luck-based RPG poorly converted to a real-time system with tons of exploits, as well as an ocean's width of knee-deep content, versus a free-roaming car game with third-person cover shooter combat. Honestly, Elder Scrolls are a time-waster, and for that, you get your money's worth if you for some reason don't want to just do stuff in Minecraft, Terraria, or Dwarf Fortress instead.

[Science Officer]

How about Sleeping Dogs? It's out on PC, has a single protagonist, and he seems to be a good guy.
Haven't finished it yet, but he might be slipping a little...

[Socratov]

Gameplay's completely different. We're talking traditional luck-based RPG poorly converted to a real-time system with tons of exploits, as well as an ocean's width of knee-deep content, versus a free-roaming car game with third-person cover shooter combat. Honestly, Elder Scrolls are a time-waster, and for that, you get your money's worth if you for some reason don't want to just do stuff in Minecraft, Terraria, or Dwarf Fortress instead.

So, I guess you are not a fan of Elder Scrolls games?

Anway then, is there not a new Saints row? I odn'tknow how it falls on the evil scale, but I've heard it summed up next to GTA...

[Avilan the Grey]

Are you not allowed to be a good guy in those games? I have never played any of the GTAs before, so I wasn't aware.

In V you (occasionally) play as one of the most evil-but-in-no-way-cartoony (so he is genuinely horrifying) characters. One of the other two is an evil criminal and the last one a slightly less evil criminal.

Oh and what is Sleeping Dogs? Never heard of it.

[Hiro Protagonest]

So, I guess you are not a fan of Elder Scrolls games?

No. I do understand why people would play them, they do have far prettier landscapes than things like Minecraft, mods can make character models look good too, and while the world isn't strong, it's a lot stronger than Minecraft's or Terraria's, at least as far as not just being a wilderness full of monsters and a few NPCs who live in your apartment complex IN SPACE goes, but if I want to play a time-waster, I'll play a Paradox grand strategy game, or one of the games I previously listed (as well as the games that are riding on the waves Terraria created, Starbound and Windforge).

[Avilan the Grey]

Of course to me, the term "time waster" is a bad thing. So I don't call any of those games "time wasters". I consider 11 hours straight in Skyrim "Time Well Spent", not "wasting time".

[Hiro Protagonest]

Of course to me, the term "time waster" is a bad thing. So I don't call any of those games "time wasters". I consider 11 hours straight in Skyrim "Time Well Spent", not "wasting time".

I call it "time well wasted". :smalltongue:

I guess "time-killers" would be a better term.

[Avilan the Grey]

I call it "time well wasted". :smalltongue:

I guess "time-killers" would be a better term.

I see your point and agree :smallbiggrin:

[GloatingSwine]

The whole point of the GTA games is to steal cars and run people over.

If the protagonist wasn't an 'orrible git it would cause a disconnect between the gameplay and the narrative.

If you want to play a game where you're mostly a good guy in a similar open world drivey aboutey game you could try The Saboteur. I mean you might not be the best of all people, it's still a game where you'll nick cars and run people over because who cares about driving properly, but at least you're blowing up nazis, and that makes anyone look good.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Saints Row IV could work. The protagonist is hardly good, but he is more about fulfilling the fantasy of being able to take orders from no one and do whatever you want than being a ruthless killer who's in it for the profit. It's also got an extensive appearance customization at the start and you unlock lots of costumes throughout the game, so you can make it your character. Specifically in IV, it's also a simulation most of the time, and when it's not, you're killing alien soldiers who's working for the overlord guy that Handsome Jack wishes he was.

[Loki_42]

If the lack of cars aren't a big issue you might like Red Dead Redemption. It's made by the same people and has what amounts to GTA gameplay in a western setting, and I'd be hard-pressed to call the main character evil. Or, well, you can play him as evil, but it's not forced on you in the story, and you can do good deeds just as easily as bad ones.

Speaking of, I haven't played that far into GTA V yet, but I'd say that most of the people in the GTA universe are terrible people, so it's at least a little karmic to do the things you do to them. Also, GTA V has similar random events to Red Dead Redemption, so you can do things like shoot down other thieves to return their stolen property. Hell, if you never touched the story, you could probably get away with being half-way decent. And if you do do the storyline and take advantage of all the evil, evil freedom you have, it's still Black vs. Black morality instead of you murdering and stealing from actually good characters, usually.

Also, I second Sleeping Dogs. I haven't gotten a chance to play it myself, but I've seen people play it, and it looks amazing. Also, you play as a (deep undercover) cop, so I think you have freedom to not be completely evil.

[Brother Oni]

The predecessors to Sleeping Dogs, the True Crimes games, is essentially GTA but you're a police officer instead.

If you don't mind the Boy's Own version of history, then The Saboteur might fit your bill: you're an Irishman working for the French Resistance in Paris during WW2.
I have some personal issues with it, but it's a solid, although not amazing game.

[factotum]

I'll add my vote for Sleeping Dogs, although you should definitely invest in an XBox controller for that game--most of the combat is melee rather than shooty shooty. There's also L.A. Noire, but that gives you a lot less freedom than GTA or SD do--yes, you can theoretically drive anywhere in the game, but 99% of the time there's no point in doing so because you have only one objective relating to your current mission. (I do wonder sometimes why they even bothered making the game sandboxy).

Saints Row 3 (and probably 4, although I don't know for sure because I've not played it) approaches it differently--the character you're playing is unquestionably an evil SOB, but the stuff you do is so over-the-top and ridiculous it's more like being an evil cartoon character than anything else, so it's a lot easier to handle. I wouldn't recommend Saints Row 2, though, because it wasn't quite as cartoony and you end up doing some *really* horrible things in that game.

One other possible option: Mercenaries 2. You're playing a mercenary out to get revenge on the guy who hired him and then tried to kill him, and the action takes place in a warzone, so there's a lot of general killing going on that you kind of blend into.

[Milo v3]

Sleeping dogs is much better than GTA in regards to the morality of your character, but he isn't exactly a saint. He does commit crimes and stuff, but there is always a reason (often to maintain his cover) so it isn't gratuitous and if he does do something then the world (and it's characters) react realistically and call you out on it.

So yeah, I agree with that suggestion.

[Wayac]

Not sure if you want to go this far in the other extreme, but if you have a WiiU, Lego City Undercover (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CyH8Na_Hck) is pretty much a Lego version of GTA. As far as I've seen, you only play as one character who happens to be a police officer. (Who admittedly does some morally gray things, but it's delightfully cartoony)

Another option that will be interesting to see is The Division (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njfj6KwEAfg), but I have no information beyond that trailer if it's anywhere close to what you're looking for.

[Avilan the Grey]

Thanks for all the info...

I know what the "point" of GTA is. The problem is that unlike say TES games, or Fallout, it's not a matter of choosing to do something evil (though I find the people boasting about how they kill every civilian in Skyrim... boring. No imagination whatsoever), but that you are FORCED to play evil, and FORCED to take part in scripted scenes where you commit sickening acts.

I have no problem gunning down someone in cold blood in ME, because it is MY choice, and that person has been a complete bastard to me, or endangered civilians or whatever.

Basically I want GTA's world, all the detail and complete openness, but with all the choices, and consequences, to be my own.
If I choose to rob a corner store, the cops should look for me. If I steal a car and run over all people I can see, I EXPECT to be gunned down.

...Also, it's difficult playing a game wanting the people who chase me to win... which is what would happen if I got hunted by the police in a GTA game...

(Of course I also find the fanboy crowd utterly distubing. The people who troll the Escapist reviewer because he only gave the game a 3,5 out of 5, because he hated the characters he had to play... and who also troll the female reviewers who dare only give the game a 9,5 out of 10 because of the lack of non-hookers in the game (except for the straw feminist you are supposed to mock even as a player, of course), and who openly mock anyone who do not enjoy the tooth pulling scene).

[Rockphed]

(Of course I also find the fanboy crowd utterly distubing. The people who troll the Escapist reviewer because he only gave the game a 3,5 out of 5, because he hated the characters he had to play... and who also troll the female reviewers who dare only give the game a 9,5 out of 10 because of the lack of non-hookers in the game (except for the straw feminist you are supposed to mock even as a player, of course), and who openly mock anyone who do not enjoy the tooth pulling scene).

Frankly, both of those offenses would have dropped the maximum review value down by 50%. There is setting your game in a fallen city where in order to succeed you have to bend your morality, and then there is setting your game in said fallen city, making it a cartoon villain's paradise, and having all the main characters enjoy it.

[JollyChris]

Have you tried Red Dead Redemption? It's another Rockstar game and is pretty much GTA in the wild west. The main character an ex outlaw who is trying to go straight so isn't a sadistic evil bastard. In the cut scenes he's a nice guy though the game lets you do evil **** like tying women to train tracks.

Edit: Oh and it's a few years old by now so you should be able to pick it up cheap.

[Closet_Skeleton]

isn't that what the Elder Scrolls games are if you run it with the graphic mods?

Sandbox, yes. Action packed, yes. Awesome, yes. Stunning visuals, hell yes.:smallcool:

I've never felt like a good guy in Skyrim, not with how many people I kill. Even when I'm only fighting undead I'm still grave-robbing. Saving the world isn't even that black and white when its that world. Morrowind was more heroic since human enemies were so rare and deadly at low levels you avoided them and loot was basically worthless anyway.

[Loki_42]

Ooh, maybe Just Cause 2 could work? It's insanely open world, and is similar to the Mercenaries 2 suggestion above. In fact, it's probably even better than Mercenaries 2, because in Just Cause 2, you're an American Agent doing government work instead of a Merc killing people for money and revenge. I've never actually finished the story, so I don't know if your alignment changes, but I doubt it, the whole thing seems pretty hokey action movie so far. I guess you come close to hostile interrogations and roughing people up to get information, but even that never crosses the line into torture.

[Avilan the Grey]

I'll have to do some investigating :smallsmile:
Thanks everyone.

[Luzahn]

Even when I'm only fighting undead I'm still grave-robbing.

Excuse me, but I'm reclaiming the treasures of my ancestors. :smalltongue:

[Hiro Protagonest]

Excuse me, but I'm reclaiming the treasures of my ancestors. :smalltongue:

And I'm grave-robbing (he said it like it's a bad thing :smallconfused:)!

[Closet_Skeleton]

I enjoyed the original Mercenaries and heard that Mercenaries 2 was pretty much slated as being terrible compared to the original. In Mercenaries, you were amoral but that didn't make you evil, your could choose not to work for some factions and could just work for the USA (the moralities of which are against the board rules to discuss, but in this fictional case their imperialist intervention isn't at its hypocritical worst).


Excuse me, but I'm reclaiming the treasures of my ancestors. :smalltongue:

No you're not, your ancestors still have all their treasure, you're just infringing your ancestor's property rights. That's like stealing from your grand-father just because he's senile and won't notice.

[stabbybelkar]

I'll have to do some investigating :smallsmile:
Thanks everyone.

Perhaps Far Cry 3 might be in your interests? It's definitely open world, and while the story does have your character become a blood knight, at the end it is 100% your choice as to whether you jump off the slippery slope or have the character reject that side of him. Even in the evil ending, it's REALLY hard to say that you don't get what you deserve at the end.

Alternately, get Blood Dragon. It's basically Far Cry 3, but it's WAY more cartoony, and there is no moral ambiguity. You are good. The guys your fighting are evil.

[Soralin]

You could check out Watch Dogs, although it's not out yet. It's probably the closest game to (GTA but not (completely) evil): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HbBxtmCCaI

[Goosefeather]

No you're not, your ancestors still have all their treasure, you're just infringing your ancestor's property rights. That's like stealing from your grand-father just because he's senile a zombie and won't notice.

The draugr are undead monsters, not senile old men. Do zombies even get property rights? Besides, my ancestors (pre-zombification) would want their cherished Warhammer of Mighty Smashing to be in my hands, continuing their legacy of squashing bad guys, rather than rusting uselessly in a crypt somewhere. They were practical people, my ancestors. :smalltongue:

[Mordokai]

I would second Red Dead Redemption, since it's really good game and John Marston is a great character. It is very much GTA like, but you can be decent person. Well... as decent as it was possible in the days of wild west.

Sadly, to the best of my knowledge, it has never been released for PC.

[Avilan the Grey]

Besides, it's only grave robbing if you take stuff. You can be a "pure" person by going into crypts and cleanse the undead and only take the things they drop...

[Kizor]

I've heard of a similar game called Driver that might be more up your alley, though it dates back to 1999.

[Goosefeather]

Also, speaking of older games, True Crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Crime:_Streets_of_LA) is basically 'GTA as a cop'. It's not as good as GTA though.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Do zombies even get property rights?

They do in an ancestor worshipping lineage obsessed society full of tombs.

There's at least one moment where a Nord gets pissed off if you loot their family tomb, even as you help him defeat some Draugyr.


I've heard of a similar game called Driver that might be more up your alley, though it dates back to 1999.

There was a recent Driver: San Francisco that got a lot of critique's choice recommendations. There are about 7 games in that series according to Wikipedia.

[Logic]

Pretty sure you said you are a PC gamer, but if you play on Xbox 360, I recommend Crackdown. You play as a Super-Cop taking down crime syndicates. Very fun.


Posted from Giantitp.com App for Android

[wiimanclassic]

Also, speaking of older games, True Crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Crime:_Streets_of_LA) is basically 'GTA as a cop'. It's not as good as GTA though.
Fun Fact
Sleeping Dogs was at one point going to be True Crime: Hong Kong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Epep_28SAcQ
Comparison video also.

Also yes, it is essentially to GTA as an undercover cop with melee like in the newer batman games.

[Callos_DeTerran]

...and when it's not, you're killing alien soldiers who's working for the overlord guy that Handsome Jack wishes he was.

Handsome Jack wishes for nothing then to be Handsome Jack. And he is! :smallamused:

[Cristo Meyers]

Fun Fact
Sleeping Dogs was at one point going to be True Crime: Hong Kong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Epep_28SAcQ
Comparison video also.

Also yes, it is essentially to GTA as an undercover cop with melee like in the newer batman games.

Even then Sleeping Dogs is a little dark. It's very much a more classic Noire story: very imperfect heroes, really nasty villains, that sort of thing.

Still a pretty good game (I found the combat and open world a little lacking), but it's very much a grey on dark grey/black setting.

[factotum]

Even then Sleeping Dogs is a little dark. It's very much a more classic Noire story: very imperfect heroes, really nasty villains, that sort of thing.

The point remains, though: however imperfect the hero you play in SD is, he's not "pure evil" in the way the GTA5 protagonists are, which is why it was recommended to Avilan!

[shadow_archmagi]

What about Crackdown? Or Just Cause 2?



Also, if I remember right, the primary draw of GTA was the freedom to steal cars and drive on the sidewalk. How would you do that in a game where you weren't evil, or at least blatantly irresponsible?

[OrcusMcP]

I'm actually gonna put a vote in for LA Noire. Yes, it's pretty scripted during the cases, but it does have "drive around" mode that's very pretty, with little street crimes you can deal with as they pop up.

Plus, old school suits and cars and all that. Hard to go wrong.

[Cristo Meyers]

I'm actually gonna put a vote in for LA Noire. Yes, it's pretty scripted during the cases, but it does have "drive around" mode that's very pretty, with little street crimes you can deal with as they pop up.

Plus, old school suits and cars and all that. Hard to go wrong.

And the main draw: the interrogations/interviews. Trying to catch all the facial tics and tells is a surprising amount of fun.

...especially for the really bad liars :smallamused:

[factotum]

Also, if I remember right, the primary draw of GTA was the freedom to steal cars and drive on the sidewalk. How would you do that in a game where you weren't evil, or at least blatantly irresponsible?

The freedom to drive around a city at speeds that would, in real life, get you locked up for so long that you forget what daylight looks like? Yes, GTA provides that. There is no requirement for you to drive on the pavement and mow down pedestrians like so much chaff, though (although you *did* earn score for doing that in GTA3, it hasn't been like that in any subsequent segment). Yes, you can choose to do that if you want to, but the game certainly doesn't *force* you into doing it, and I never did so when playing a GTA game.

[GloatingSwine]

I'm actually gonna put a vote in for LA Noire. Yes, it's pretty scripted during the cases, but it does have "drive around" mode that's very pretty, with little street crimes you can deal with as they pop up.

Plus, old school suits and cars and all that. Hard to go wrong.

On the other hand, anything you do in the minor crimes can only possibly penalise you, there's nothing to actually do in the world other than drive from scene to scene, and you're basically still playing an assbag, if not an irredeemably horrible person, still an assbag.

LA Noire is basically like playing a sub-par Phoenix Wright game with rubbish combat and driving around that exists only to pad the game length.

[Closet_Skeleton]

LA Noire is basically like playing a sub-par Phoenix Wright game with rubbish combat and driving around that exists only to pad the game length.

From the reviews it looked a bit like it had similar problems to David Cage's games (Fahrenheit etc). It tries to sell itself on being unique and outside of the box but really its just an old fashioned adventure game. If you play a lot of adventure games, sub-par ones with better graphics aren't that appealing. If you don't play adventure games because they're mostly old or independent without modern AAA graphics then they're probably the best you're going to get.

[ZeroNumerous]

The whole point of the GTA games is to steal cars and run people over.

If the protagonist wasn't an 'orrible git it would cause a disconnect between the gameplay and the narrative.

Niko from GTA IV was a pretty normal guy who happened to be thrust in bad situations where he needed to do some bad things to survive.

[Brother Oni]

Niko from GTA IV was a pretty normal guy who happened to be thrust in bad situations where he needed to do some bad things to survive.

That was before he went to America though. While not a completely unpleasant person, he still has a very hard edge in his character due to his war experiences.

That said, Niko has the patience of a saint, especially when he's dealing with Little Jacob and Badman.

[factotum]

Niko from GTA IV was a pretty normal guy who happened to be thrust in bad situations where he needed to do some bad things to survive.

As with CJ from San Andreas, though, there are times when Niko does horrible things purely off his own bat without being prompted. I don't recall there being any particular justification for him killing the Russian mobster guy, for instance, and he'd have avoided all the problems that happened at the end of the game if he hadn't done that.

[GungHo]

On the other hand, anything you do in the minor crimes can only possibly penalise you, there's nothing to actually do in the world other than drive from scene to scene, and you're basically still playing an assbag, if not an irredeemably horrible person, still an assbag.

LA Noire is basically like playing a sub-par Phoenix Wright game with rubbish combat and driving around that exists only to pad the game length.

I enjoyed screaming at little old ladies and calling them the scum of the earth simply because I clicked on the option said that I doubted their stories.

[OrcusMcP]

I enjoyed screaming at little old ladies and calling them the scum of the earth simply because I clicked on the option said that I doubted their stories.

A fun game you can play with LA Noire:

Imagine that it's not "Cole Phelps. Traffic."

It's "Ken! Cosgrove! Accounts!"

[Winthur]

Niko from GTA IV was a pretty normal guy who happened to be thrust in bad situations where he needed to do some bad things to survive.
He was a war criminal in Serbia and did some pretty shady things there, so I'd not call him exactly "pretty normal".


and who also troll the female reviewers who dare only give the game a 9,5 out of 10 because of the lack of non-hookers in the game (except for the straw feminist you are supposed to mock even as a player, of course)

If I remember the review you are referring correctly, it's the one that starts off mentioning the game's merits in passing while immediately jumping into the game's supposed "issues with women". Apparently the reviewer hasn't picked up that it's a game full of thugs, backstabbers, drug dealers and they kind of treat people overall like dirt, and that GTA series is basically rather cartoonish in its depiction of the world of crime (with the exception of GTA IV, which was panned for trying to be super gritty).

Besides, we all know two things: good reviews are bought nowadays and people are stupid. You can tell that this review wouldn't have given the game a 9/10, especially given the editor's sentiments towards other games she reviews, solely on the basis of those supposed mysoginistic themes, but Gamespot wouldn't dare call GTAV anything but possible GOTY material.

Sure the backlash this poor person has received is way out of proportion but this particular thing was handled in a terribly oversensitive way.

Back on the topic:
Try out an oldie but a goodie - the first Driver game. It has you play an undercover cop who does small jobs for the mafia, buying their trust in bank heists and similar while ultimately working to bring them down. There's some alright storyline, and most importantly - it's challenging. It's solely focused on driving, but it's not a racing game; basically imagine if GTA was a game solely focused car chases and breakneck races against time. The sequels to Driver are rubbish.

[factotum]

The sequels to Driver are rubbish.

So you've never played Driver: San Francisco, then, which was all sorts of awesome?

[warty goblin]

Besides, we all know two things: good reviews are bought nowadays and people are stupid. You can tell that this review wouldn't have given the game a 9/10, especially given the editor's sentiments towards other games she reviews, solely on the basis of those supposed mysoginistic themes, but Gamespot wouldn't dare call GTAV anything but possible GOTY material.

Rather than all game reviewers being sellouts, I prefer to blame the hordes who descend into the comments with their pitchforks and death threats every time 'their' game doesn't score highly enough. Really, fans being dumb explains so much.

[Winthur]

So you've never played Driver: San Francisco, then, which was all sorts of awesome?

No, I lost interest in the series and became convinced after the first two sequels that Driver had only one good game. So yeah, thanks for the heads-up.

[Raimun]

inFamous for PS3. The game where you gain electrical super powers in a city that's quarantined and overrun by gangs.

"Any man can overcome adversity. If you truly want to test a man's character, give him power." — Abraham Lincoln

You can be an avatar of destruction and death, killing everyone who gets in your way.

... Or you can be the hero of the city.

When I played the game, I was just that. When evil threatened the regular citizens I used to jump the bad guys and beat them up. I always felt disappointed if I could not save someone. I was relieved when I noticed they weren't dead yet and I could still heal them. And those bad guys? If I could, I didn't kill them, I just restrained them.

To be fair, some, if not the most, of the battles were so chaotic and desperate that I could not control the power so well that the bad guys were left alive... but they were bad, okay? :smalltongue:

Eventually the people were so impressed by my work that they printed posters of me standing strong and threw rocks at the violent gang members, like in the first Spider-Man-movie.

[MLai]

A game like GTA, but without the evil....
http://img.bhs4.com/80/8/8089a75cd18744a9dd51f132674bdd0e0e61f67e_large.jpg

XBox game, can be played on the X360. :smallsmile:
I freakin' loved this series. The ending of the first game made me cry manly tears and inspired me with this buoyant feeling that wouldn't leave, like suddenly I felt like life is an adventure and I'm just starting it.
It's a shame Ryo isn't a bonus character in VF5. I don't care if he's balanced or not, I just wanna mess around with him (y'know which is the entire game of Shenmue 1/2).

[Tylorious]

If you kill people who are worse than you are, that makes you a good guy. At least that's how it is viewed in the world of gaming. In that regard yes, in GTA 5, 2 of the 3 characters are good guys.

[DigoDragon]

I call it "time well wasted". :smalltongue:
I guess "time-killers" would be a better term.

My wife calls it the "Husband Abduction Scenario".



Excuse me, but I'm reclaiming the treasures of my ancestors. :smalltongue:

As they say, you can't take it with you. Except maybe you can if you know where the Oblivion gates are... well dang.

[The_Jackal]

The gameplay actually governs the reality of Sandbox games. What are you going to do in a modern-day sandbox EXCEPT commit crimes? Fill out your taxes and go to work? What makes the GTA franchise work is the same thing that made films like Goodfellas, The Godfather, and Casino work, and they should be embraced in the same manner: As escapism, not an endorsement of the acts of their protagonists.

Bottom line: It's fun, no one is actually harmed, so get over yourself and run over some pedestrians.

[Raimun]

There really should be a game which is basically Saint's Row IV+inFamous.

With a really detailed city.

Actual moral choices.

And most importantly, amazing super powers, that let you leap over buildings, so you don't have to slug it throug from one mission site to the next.

I don't know if it bothers anyone else but I'm kind on the fence about huge sandbox game worlds. Sure, they're amazing as a technical achievement and you can't help but be impressed by them... until you realize you have to actually walk and drive through them veeeryyy slooowly.

Now days, I'm only willing to play sand box games with really good travel super powers. Even driving around is kind of a chore when compared to leaping and flying.

[Logic]

Bottom line: It's fun, no one is actually harmed, so get over yourself and run over some pedestrians.

I agree with all you points but this last one. Not everyone is comfortable with just getting over themselves and participating in acts against their morality.

The difference between GTA5 and the Godfather is participation. In the Godfather, you watch vile people do vile things, in GTA5, you are the monster doing vile things. Not wanting to do those things is nothing worthy of "getting over oneself," and there is nothing wrong with wanting some modern, open world game to explore that doesn't shoehorn you into the role of a bad guy.

[Tylorious]

The difference between GTA5 and the Godfather is participation. In the Godfather, you watch vile people do vile things, in GTA5, you are the monster doing vile things. Not wanting to do those things is nothing worthy of "getting over oneself," and there is nothing wrong with wanting some modern, open world game to explore that doesn't shoehorn you into the role of a bad guy.

This, I played GTA5 up until the point wher you have to torture someone and i decided to never play it again because it made me cringe. I don't see a problem with having a GTAesque game where you aren't a bad guy.

[Hawriel]

This, I played GTA5 up until the point wher you have to torture someone and i decided to never play it again because it made me cringe. I don't see a problem with having a GTAesque game where you aren't a bad guy.

This is one of the better comments on gaming in general. Accept a game for what it is until you can no longer accept it. For some people its the up front style of game. For example, I will never play a Postal game.

From what I see with Postal, it is nothing more that a sandbox game for a sadism. Any quests, or missions the game may have are just reason to set up a scenario of dreadful acts.

San Andreas is the only GTA game that I actually finished the story with. I liked J.C. in the beginning. However there were story missions that broke my connection with the character. One of the first missions that broke that connection was when a poser gangster rapper, who J.C. all but out right hated, asked you to kill some one.

The game has J.C. just do it because the poser is his "home boy". I call bull****. There was no option to tell the idiot to screw off I'm not killing some one for no reason.

There were a few more missions that broke the tone of the character. J.C. went from being some, right or wrong, defending his neighborhood and trying to find a little justice, and revenge. To an indiscriminate killer.

For me GTA games are a crime noir game. Just like Good fellas, The Departed, or the Godfather. What bothers me is when missions have me doing things that brake the boundaries of the character. Just like when I watch a movie, or read a book, and characters do things just because, rather than as part of their growth, or changing due to the events in the story.

A perfect example is McClain in Die Hard. McClain is a police officer. The first two times he had a confrontation with the terrorists he tried to arrest them. He finally realized fallowing that mind set would not work. It almost got him killed. McClain had to adapt to the situation.

[Winthur]

From what I see with Postal, it is nothing more that a sandbox game for a sadism. Any quests, or missions the game may have are just reason to set up a scenario of dreadful acts.

Yup, but you can go through them as a pacifist. The problem is that it's really boring. Postal was supposed to be that game you turn on for a moment to wreck and massacre things and get the frustration out. It's not anymore a "sadist game" than The Sims, which you can also play with nothing bad happening or you can set up elaborate death traps involving wooden chairs and fireplaces.


I liked J.C. in the beginning. However there were story missions that broke my connection with the character. who J.C. all but out right hated, asked you to kill some one.


The game has J.C. just do it because the poser is his "home boy"


J.C. went from being some, right or wrong, defending his neighborhood and trying to find a little justice, and revenge.
http://i.imgur.com/flCN0kz.jpg
a bomb!
this thread is about roleplayers who can't empathize with non-good characters. you guys are bad

[Avilan the Grey]

XBox game, can be played on the X360. :smallsmile:
I freakin' loved this series.

PC Master Race here. Haven't owned a console since Sega Megadrive.


The gameplay actually governs the reality of Sandbox games. What are you going to do in a modern-day sandbox EXCEPT commit crimes? Fill out your taxes and go to work? What makes the GTA franchise work is the same thing that made films like Goodfellas, The Godfather, and Casino work, and they should be embraced in the same manner: As escapism, not an endorsement of the acts of their protagonists.

Bottom line: It's fun, no one is actually harmed, so get over yourself and run over some pedestrians.

Yeah, I don't watch that, either. Gangster movies have never impressed me; just more people that need being taken care of. Permanently.

Also there is a difference between crimes and crimes. I can play a vigilante (think The Punisher), playing Judge, Jury and Executioner (which, quite frankly, is what you usually do in Bioware games, for example), or CIA hitman, or...


This, I played GTA5 up until the point wher you have to torture someone and i decided to never play it again because it made me cringe. I don't see a problem with having a GTAesque game where you aren't a bad guy.

This is exactly the scene that made me immediately decide to never buy the game. It has been discussed back and forth over the net for weeks, so I knew it was there. Also, the fact that you are forced to play as this character at all, is a secondary reason.

[factotum]

This is one of the better comments on gaming in general. Accept a game for what it is until you can no longer accept it.

I agree with that. I can handle a few horrible things in a game, but too many and it starts losing me. I think the best way I can explain it is with Dishonored--I played through that game and all its DLC in stealthy-stealthy mode; I would still kill if I absolutely had to (e.g. go through an open door and get seen by a guard), but the only mission I ever got the "Killed no-one" achievement on was the very last one of the Brigmore Witches.

I then decided to do a high chaos playthrough, and that was OK for a while--summoning rats to get rid of patrolling guards, drop-assassinating, and so on--but by the time I finished the original campaign that way I was sick to my stomach of killing, so I never did the DLC in high chaos and have no plans to.

The good thing, of course, is that Dishonored gives you that choice of how you want to play through, whereas the infamous GTA5 mission people are talking about does not--it's a main story mission, you *have* to do it in order to progress in the game.

[Closet_Skeleton]

I couldn't play dishonoured because the setting was so unappealing I couldn't bring myself to care.

I was expecting Steam Punk St Petersberg with magic and I got diesel Punk City 17.

I like stealth games, but the only game I'd like to play in Dunwall is a flight sim with large quantities of TNT and napalm to drop on it.

[kidnicky]

Older games but Spider-Man 2 (movie adaptation) and Incredible Hulk (non movie) were both great open world games where you were either a good guy (Spidey) or could choose to be a good guy (Hulk) . Of course, even when you do "bad" stuff with Hulk, it's just G rated Godzillaish smashing and crashing, not tooth pulling.

[Tylorious]

Yeah, isn't that pretty much Arkham City in a nutshell though?

[warty goblin]

Yeah, isn't that pretty much Arkham City in a nutshell though?

That would require playing as Batman, the third least interesting thing in the known universe.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

The gameplay actually governs the reality of Sandbox games. What are you going to do in a modern-day sandbox EXCEPT commit crimes? Fill out your taxes and go to work? What makes the GTA franchise work is the same thing that made films like Goodfellas, The Godfather, and Casino work, and they should be embraced in the same manner: As escapism, not an endorsement of the acts of their protagonists.

SimCity is arguably a sandbox game where you can get enjoyment out of not being evil. The Tycoon games as well.

Not that it doesn't make being evil fun in its own way.......heh heh. *opens the lion cage in the zoo*

[Logic]

That would require playing as Batman, the third least interesting thing in the known universe.

Prior to Arkham Asylum, your statement would be true. Batman games have been notorious in the past.

[warty goblin]

Prior to Arkham Asylum, your statement would be true. Batman games have been notorious in the past.

Not Batman games, Batman himself. Boring.

[Tylorious]

That would require playing as Batman, the third least interesting thing in the known universe.

I am curious as to what the first two least interesting things in the universe are.

[warty goblin]

I am curious as to what the first two least interesting things in the universe are.

Pretentious indie 'art' games and celebrity gossip.

[Tylorious]

Pretentious indie 'art' games and celebrity gossip.

Well, I usually don't agree with people who disagree with me, but I agree with you.

[kidnicky]

You can say Batman is many things, but "uninteresting"?

[warty goblin]

You can say Batman is many things, but "uninteresting"?

Yep, stone-cold boring. I managed to care about Batman for approximately two minutes while watching Batman Begins, but that was it. Otherwise? I'd rather be cleaning the bathroom.

[Aotrs Commander]

You can say Batman is many things, but "uninteresting"?

Yes.

Very much so.

Batman works quite well as a foil for other characters (see DCAU), but on his own he's rather banal, in my opinion.



Unless it's Adam West Batman, of course.

If they made a modern game (especially a whole DCU Adam West-style) of that I would buy the heck out of it, even though I don't play that sort of genera otherwise...

[chiasaur11]

There really should be a game which is basically Saint's Row IV+inFamous.

With a really detailed city.

Actual moral choices.

And most importantly, amazing super powers, that let you leap over buildings, so you don't have to slug it throug from one mission site to the next.

I don't know if it bothers anyone else but I'm kind on the fence about huge sandbox game worlds. Sure, they're amazing as a technical achievement and you can't help but be impressed by them... until you realize you have to actually walk and drive through them veeeryyy slooowly.

Now days, I'm only willing to play sand box games with really good travel super powers. Even driving around is kind of a chore when compared to leaping and flying.

You played Saint's Row IV, right? Sounds like what you want. It's a GTA descendant with awesome superpowers. (Speed! Jumping! Fire! Ice! Probably also lightning!)

And moral choices? Buddy, in the second mission, you choose to cure cancer OR end world hunger. Don't get much bigger than that.

Unlike GTA, you aren't a sociopath in this one. More of a... puckish rogue.

You're also the President of the United States. So, you know, it's like Nixon said.

"When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal"

Edit: Aaand, you mentioned it right there. Still. Never enough Saint's Row IV love.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Yes.

Very much so.

Batman works quite well as a foil for other characters (see DCAU), but on his own he's rather banal, in my opinion.



Unless it's Adam West Batman, of course.

What about Cossack Batman?

[wiimanclassic]

What about Cossack Batman?

Or Animated Series Batman? He was a good character, he's just sort of morphed into a boring invincible one over the years.

[Rockphed]

You played Saint's Row IV, right? Sounds like what you want. It's a GTA descendant with awesome superpowers. (Speed! Jumping! Fire! Ice! Probably also lightning!)

And moral choices? Buddy, in the second mission, you choose to cure cancer OR end world hunger. Don't get much bigger than that.

Unlike GTA, you aren't a sociopath in this one. More of a... puckish rogue.

You're also the President of the United States. So, you know, it's like Nixon said.

"When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal"

Edit: Aaand, you mentioned it right there. Still. Never enough Saint's Row IV love.

I think you mean metal wolf chaos. Well, we cannot have discussion of us presidents as game characters without bringing up metal wolf chaos.

[leafman]

Why not play free roam in GTA V multiplayer. All the fun sandbox driving, none of horrible evil stuff. I don't think there is a requirement to play the single player campaign. You'll probably still have to commit crimes to get money to buy cars, housing, upgrades etc., but you can go play a relaxing round of golf after (seriously it's in the game). I haven't played the game personally so I can't endorse it too much, but I have watched other people have a lot of fun playing.

[chiasaur11]

I think you mean metal wolf chaos. Well, we cannot have discussion of us presidents as game characters without bringing up metal wolf chaos.

The Boss is even better as the President than Michael Wilson.

Admitted, their administrations have certain... similarities.

Elected on strong war records, they both pilot giant robots before being betrayed by their vice presidents.

The thing is, The Boss keeps AMERICA together despite the destruction of Earth, preserves Earth's finest cultural institutions (Nyteblade, Jane Austen, Biz Markie singalongs) in the face of alien oppression, AND she ends cancer forever.

Wilson prevents America from being exploded by a nuke as his big moment. That's how The Boss starts her campaign.

But my vote goes to the POTUS with a dubstep gun.

[Tebryn]

PC Master Race here. Haven't owned a console since Sega Megadrive.



Yeah, I don't watch that, either. Gangster movies have never impressed me; just more people that need being taken care of. Permanently.

Also there is a difference between crimes and crimes. I can play a vigilante (think The Punisher), playing Judge, Jury and Executioner (which, quite frankly, is what you usually do in Bioware games, for example), or CIA hitman, or...



This is exactly the scene that made me immediately decide to never buy the game. It has been discussed back and forth over the net for weeks, so I knew it was there. Also, the fact that you are forced to play as this character at all, is a secondary reason.

So...I just want to ask. When the Punisher tortures someone...that's ok to you? And if so...what makes it different? Because the Punisher totally tortures people. Murders people. Really isn't a "Good Guy" so what's the difference here between say...the Punisher and any of the characters from GTAV because from where I'm sitting (and having seen your rant on Breaking Bad) it's a pretty arbitrary line that you paint about.

[Cerlis]

Not sure where you get the Evil thing in GTA V.

I mean, sure Trevor is a murderous psycho path. But Franklin and Micheal are good moral people who just happen to have the balls to get things done when things go down.


I think the problem is confusing the game-play for the canon (this happens in WoW all the time).

The fact that you can slam into other cars, run read lights, and even accidentally kill people without drawing attention (more will bring the cops. Two guys attacked me for no reason, so i beat them down with my fists and come one calls the cops) because it would literally be impossible to go from mission to mission and get anything done in remotely a timely method if accidentally running over a person will get a bunch of cops permanently on your butt. and you have to get plastic surgery to get em off.

Not to mention i dont think there is any game in existence that doesn't force you to kill any law enforcement that comes after you (or have an "auto die" mechanic if getting caught when they physically reach you)

---------------------
Franklin and Micheal are just as admirable as any anti hero/flawed-hero out there. They are there with Malcolm Reynolds, Haley Starshine and Luke Skywalker (or where all those stormtroopers on the deathstar actually robots? /sarcasm)

[endoperez]

I think the problem is confusing the game-play for the canon (this happens in WoW all the time).

If I got you right, you're saying that the characters in GTAV aren't evil, but when you play the game you end up doing more evil things (killing bystanders, cops) than the non-evil characters would. A person disliking the game for the fact that it forces him to play as an evil person shouldn't complain about that, despite the fact that the game plays as if you're an evil person, because the story says you aren't, really.

That doesn't work for me. Did I misunderstand it?


Not to mention i dont think there is any game in existence that doesn't force you to kill any law enforcement that comes after you (or have an "auto die" mechanic if getting caught when they physically reach you)

There are some examples. Elder Scrolls series, Pokemon games, some games where you're arrested because of mistaken identity but that's then cleared out (Ace Attorney series does think I think), etc.


Franklin and Micheal are just as admirable as any anti hero/flawed-hero out there. They are there with Malcolm Reynolds, Haley Starshine and Luke Skywalker (or where all those stormtroopers on the deathstar actually robots? /sarcasm)

No, I disagree here too. We admire Luke Skywalker as a Jedi, not as a killer. He's emphasized as a jedi, and his kills are de-emphasized. The stormtroopers are only shown as faceless mooks, I don't remember the details but I wouldn't be suprrised if their voices were distorted slightly and they didn't show blood or bleeding or pain on the screen.

GTAV emphasizes the killing and the violence. Real people, blood, nasty stuff.

It's illogical, but it's easier to admire a person that kills 1000 stormtroopers than to admire a person that kills 10 named characters.

[GnomeGninjas]

I mean, sure Trevor is a murderous psycho path. But Franklin and Micheal are good moral people who just happen to have the balls to get things done when things go down.

Franklin and Micheal are just as admirable as any anti hero/flawed-hero out there. They are there with Malcolm Reynolds, Haley Starshine and Luke Skywalker (or where all those stormtroopers on the deathstar actually robots? /sarcasm)

I don't see how Franklin and Michael are good people. What good deeds do they do? Sure, they don't revel in doing bad stuff and most of the crimes they do are to just to protect their own lives but they still don't really do any good deeds.

[Triaxx]

I... have to agree. I played about ten minutes of GTA:SA, and after failing the first mission, I put it back in the case, and never went back. (Seriously, I found Transformers: The Movie The Game more enjoyable.) It wasn't necessarily the childish swearing. And it was childish. Like small children that don't actually understand the words they're using, they just seem to throw them out everywhere. Spock managed it better.

It was more the 'I ArE a CRiminaL.' Tag the walls? Okay, fine, but I saw only one spot and then never found another. I just plain gave up on it.

[Cerlis]

If I got you right, you're saying that the characters in GTAV aren't evil, but when you play the game you end up doing more evil things (killing bystanders, cops) than the non-evil characters would. A person disliking the game for the fact that it forces him to play as an evil person shouldn't complain about that, despite the fact that the game plays as if you're an evil person, because the story says you aren't, really.

That doesn't work for me. Did I misunderstand it?



There are some examples. Elder Scrolls series, Pokemon games, some games where you're arrested because of mistaken identity but that's then cleared out (Ace Attorney series does think I think), etc.



No, I disagree here too. We admire Luke Skywalker as a Jedi, not as a killer. He's emphasized as a jedi, and his kills are de-emphasized. The stormtroopers are only shown as faceless mooks, I don't remember the details but I wouldn't be suprrised if their voices were distorted slightly and they didn't show blood or bleeding or pain on the screen.

GTAV emphasizes the killing and the violence. Real people, blood, nasty stuff.

It's illogical, but it's easier to admire a person that kills 1000 stormtroopers than to admire a person that kills 10 named characters.

--Except they aren't evil things because your character doesn't cannonically kill them. My character jumped down the stairs hit his torso on the ceiling, fell down like a rag doll. But that didnt actually happen in the story either. There is no reason to think that anything the player does is actually canon, unless the storytelling says it is. Thats how storytelling works.

Canonically (from what i've seen of the story at least. I havent seen the torture yet, but what interesting heroes in a mature story haven't had to at least wrestle with the possibility that they might have to do something like that) the main characters have pissed off some gang members and criminals, who then try to kill them (or at least hurt them). A few times they end up getting sloppy on a job and end up having to shoot at or even vehicularly ram cops(their cars, in the second instance). Though they are morally "wrong" for committing a crime, for not letting themselves get arrested, that moral wrongness is only loosely affiliated with what happens next. which is defend themselves. And by defend themselves i mean shoot AT their pursuers in an attempt to convince them not to pursue them. And yes they have accepted the fact that if you shoot at someone they might die. this isnt GTA 40k. They dont have pacifist space guns.

But yes, in this Sandbox game you physically CAN go around shooting rag dolls that walk around and blowing up metal things you can drive around. But you are going to be hard pressed to convince me that if my running around in circles for two hours isnt canon, why suddenly me accidentally running over a pedestrian while delivering pizza is. As it sounds like its just "because it -looks- bad".

---Well to avoid generalization I'd address those games. A game like Pokemon if your character does get in trouble he ends up having NPCs approach him and it blacks out. This is basically auto death in the game. Not death death of course but the point is there IS no law enforcement as you just automatically lose the level if you fail. While other characters like team rocket "all" you do is use your mind slaves to beat up their mind slaves who miraculously dont die even when exposed to flame throwers and giant spears sharp enough to cut metal.
In Elder Scrolls games if you are LUCKY you can pay off your debt or go to jail (though i wonder how often that happens). But i've encountered many guards who have attacked me on sight (i'm looking at you Dominion). And what is worse is there have been times i have accidentally done something and i have no option to tell the person that it was an accident and its either run away for the next 10 minutes or kill them. So yes Elder scrolls does frequently put you at odds with people to whom you have no choice but to murder.
As for the Attorney game.....Of course a game focused on LAW wouldn't have Cowboy justice.


---------Lastly. No no no no no. The salvation of the rebel forces (who are one side in a WAR, I.e. Everyone killing everyone) was bought with the death of thousands upon thousands of Empire lives. A base the size of a moon couldnt be run by a mere thousand people. Maybe if personnel where restricted to a base the size of the surface of the moon. But we see it is a nice three dimensional base. And murdering people who dont have names might impact the reader(or whatever) less, but that is a narrative thing, not a moral thing. In fact if that movie where made in this day in age there would probably be some big 10 minute long debate where Luke refuses to attempt to blow up the deathstar because it will mean the deaths of so many (a jedi knows ALL life is sacred). And he would have been convinced that it is a necessity probably with some Greater Good (the axiom of most evil)


I... have to agree. I played about ten minutes of GTA:SA, and after failing the first mission, I put it back in the case, and never went back. (Seriously, I found Transformers: The Movie The Game more enjoyable.) It wasn't necessarily the childish swearing. And it was childish. Like small children that don't actually understand the words they're using, they just seem to throw them out everywhere. Spock managed it better.

It was more the 'I ArE a CRiminaL.' Tag the walls? Okay, fine, but I saw only one spot and then never found another. I just plain gave up on it.

Well sorry if i think that someone who spent 10 minutes on a game and judged the whole of it because they dont like bad words, isnt a good judge of the game.



I don't see how Franklin and Michael are good people. What good deeds do they do? Sure, they don't revel in doing bad stuff and most of the crimes they do are to just to protect their own lives but they still don't really do any good deeds.

Micheal spent a good long while trying to convince Franklin to avoid a life of crime. He puts faith in his (crack) psychiatrist that what he is doing is working even though he doesn't feel any better. He protects his friends and tries to keep from hurting anyone (you will notice in the opening scene he is the one trying to convince the guard to let him go and just walk away, and when Trevor kills the guard he says "you didnt have to do that!). He is protective of his Wife, son and Daughter and wants them to not only be happy but to succeed at life (he just doesnt know how to get them to do it. And people aren't "evil" cus they are bad fathers). He keeps to himself and only goes against other people who are scum, hurt he and his, or richly deserve it. He is honest and courteous to other people and has a general respect for other people's dignity (naturally until they prove they dont deserve it, such as the man who screwed his wife). And his initial reaction to everyone is to let them be cus people deserve to be happy.

Franklin is a sensible boy born in the ghetto. He knows there is a better life out there but he can't get free of his past. If you pay attention everything questionable or immoral he does is in order to help, protect, or get money for the half-a-dozen people who are counting on him. His aunt who needs money, his best friend who thinks he is being reasonable (but is really an idiot), one of his girl homies who is married to some crack head slacker. And naturally his gang (which if you remember correctly most people join so that other gangs know not to mess with them unless they want to start a gang war). the games SECOND mission shows you that he is trying to play at a straight job. earn legitimate money and make his way in the world through hard work and determination. He keeps having to do odd jobs because all of his friends and family KNOW they can count on him to help them out and all of THEM are prone to getting into some illegal stuff.

Micheal's main flaws are that he is prone to solving problems aggressively (Probably diagnosed with anger issues and an adrenaline junkie , if his psychiatrist would actually do his job), and having accepted the fact that when you live a life of crime anyone around you has a chance of dying, and that not deterring him.

Franklin's flaw is basically that he is an enabler. Of course if he just let people do what they wanted without his help (and he is in almost every scene, seen trying to talk people out of what they are doing) they'd probably all end up dead or homeless. His curse is being the only person his friends and family can count on. And then there is the fact that he latches on a father figure who is one of the only people to recognize that he actually is smart and knows what he is doing.


----------------------------------

Yes if the stuff at the beginning of the game made you feel funny then by all means dont play it. Hell, thank God you didnt get to Trevor's storyline. He's a bit of a monster.

I'd accept arguments that F and M are Neutral. They they cause their own problem. That alot of innocent people get hurt, or dye because they dont pick a different path. But they aren't some raving monsters just because its possible in game to go on a shooting spree.

-------------

not to mention that, as my roommate was just talking about, that the whole game seems like a Big Fable talking about why the game and criminal lifestyle ISN'T ok. Franklin is getting involved in a gang war for protecting his stupid gang friends. Micheal is risking is family and his good life in order to get his thrills again. He's seen that his violent streaks scare his family and that they dont even respect him.

I'm excited for the game because i think each of them are going to get a big lesson. Its going to be a tragic lesson. Hey maybe the story wont go that way, but its at least giving me ideas on how people might be seduced into exciting lives where people's live are in your hand and a little planning and hard work can net you a few million dollars in a day.....and have that conflict with what is really important in life.

from what i can tell in the part of the story where I am at is right on the part where everything looks to be going perfect reminding them of why this lifestyle is good. And in a few chapters that is all probably going to be shot to hell.

[macsen]

You want to play a GTA without evil? What do the initials of GTA stand for?

Insofar as these sandbox 'gangster' games go, GTA could do worse and could do sloppier. Gang-banging is not glamorous, cool, fun, or fulfilling (not really), but these games are meant to shell out a character's adventure in a constructed world. This world resembles our own, with its lack of dragons and all, but it's a constructed world nonetheless. People bounce off your car like beachballs, radio adverts are full of swears, and politicians are idiots, it would be a depressing dystopia if it weren't purposefully supposed to be a dysfunctional cartoon world.

If you want a Zelda game without religion for example, you need to find another game that does that for you, not ask for a Zelda game without one of its major platforms. GTA is a sandbox game with guns in it, sorry. On a couple occasions, I've seen this genre of games delve into incorporating zombies to dampen one's qualms, but that can only be done so many times in a game with guns in it. I myself have never so much as held a gun, but I find something in it I like. I pay attention to voice acting, mokap, and try to collect money. you get the point.

You can, however, ask for more games like L.A. Noire, maybe some set in modern times.

[Triaxx]

It wasn't the swearing. I don't mind swearing. I do mind bad writing.

What got me, was the lack of any direction at all, beyond: Here you are, do this. And then I never found where I was supposed to do more than the one that was jammed in my face. Perhaps I'm too used to games giving me even a vague clue of where I'm going. I actually gave up once I ended up chased by the police just looking for my objective. I hadn't even done anything 'bad'.

All that said, I'll admit I'm the first person to disregard an opinion of someone who's only played a little bit of a game. The only reason I didn't disregard my opinion is because it's mine.

[Hiro Protagonest]

For me the "all that driving over people is non-canon" argument really only holds water in a game like Assassin's Creed, where you're not fully synchronized but still able to interact with the world.

[Avilan the Grey]

So...I just want to ask. When the Punisher tortures someone...that's ok to you? And if so...what makes it different? Because the Punisher totally tortures people. Murders people. Really isn't a "Good Guy" so what's the difference here between say...the Punisher and any of the characters from GTAV because from where I'm sitting (and having seen your rant on Breaking Bad) it's a pretty arbitrary line that you paint about.

No it's not okay. And the rest I definitely disagree with. Including "arbitrary".
A vigilante and a gangster are both criminals (unless the vigilante is sanctioned by the rulers, like say Shepard in the ME games, even Paragon Shep is a murderer, by your standards).
But more to the point, a vigilante does what he does to help others, and to punish criminals. A gangster or criminal or murdered does what he or she does to earn easy money, or simply to hurt others for the lulz. That is a HUGE difference.


You want to play a GTA without evil? What do the initials of GTA stand for?

NOT the point. I want a game LIKE GTA, aka modern city sandbox with tons of freedom.

[SiuiS]

...Seriously?

I feel cheated in an odd way since I will never be able to play this game that looks so awesome, since I just cannot fathom myself playing a game with these kind of characters... :smalleek::smallfrown:

Yes, it's not out on PC yet, but anyway. I keep looking at the pictures of it going "that's awesome" but then I see the actual scripted events, and hell no. First of all I hate games with switching protagonists, I want a single person that I can play as "me". But the main problem is simply that well... If you have seen my rant against Breaking Bad then you already know my issue.

But I still feel cheated...

There's Crackdown, a GTA clone where you're a super cop.

[Tebryn]

No it's not okay. And the rest I definitely disagree with. Including "arbitrary".
A vigilante and a gangster are both criminals (unless the vigilante is sanctioned by the rulers, like say Shepard in the ME games, even Paragon Shep is a murderer, by your standards).
But more to the point, a vigilante does what he does to help others, and to punish criminals. A gangster or criminal or murdered does what he or she does to earn easy money, or simply to hurt others for the lulz. That is a HUGE difference.


You're the one making the distinction here Avilan, -my- standards haven't even been announced because they're not what we're discussing. You said "There are crimes and crimes" and then mentioned the Punisher who does the same things you have a problem with in GTAV. I was asking why it's evil in one instance (GTAV) and not in the case of The Punisher. It doesn't matter how I feel about either, you're the one who can't seem to play a character that doesn't fit to your, what appears to me, arbitrary line of what is big G good and big E evil. Are you saying that intent is what makes one action fall along those lines? The Punisher isn't "Evil" to you because he's doing it to help innocent people where as the people in GTAV are doing it because they're scenery chewing villains?


Also there is a difference between crimes and crimes. I can play a vigilante (think The Punisher), playing Judge, Jury and Executioner (which, quite frankly, is what you usually do in Bioware games, for example), or CIA hitman, or...

Those are your exact words. You're the one making the distinction. I'm merely questioning it because it seems to boil down to "It's not evil when it's a character I'm ok playing." Why is it not big e Evil when one character does it but is when another does?

[Avilan the Grey]

Those are your exact words. You're the one making the distinction. I'm merely questioning it because it seems to boil down to "It's not evil when it's a character I'm ok playing." Why is it not big e Evil when one character does it but is when another does?

I don't see the problem? Seriously, I don't understand how you cannot see the difference.

[Tebryn]

I don't see the problem? Seriously, I don't understand how you cannot see the difference.

I do understand the difference?

Edit: Better question. Do you think the Punisher is Evil?

[Avilan the Grey]

I do understand the difference? The issue here is you're calling one character big E evil for torturing people while not calling another big E evil for doing the same thing for a different reason. I'm also not the one who refuses to play a game because a character in it does something I might personally find objectionable. In fact I relish in playing characters who don't align with my own, for the lack of a better term, morals. It doesn't bother me. But it does bother you. I'll be a little more direct here. Is torture not Evil when it's done to protect innocent lives? Is that the only thing separating The Punisher from any character in GTAV?

Look, just forget Frank. I stopped reading Punisher somewhere around 1995, so he might have done a lot of things after that. You have locked in on HIM, instead of my argument, anyway. The character in GTA V that does this IS pure Evil. And you are FORCED to play as him, and do things he wants to do. THAT is my main argument.
Btw you keep telling me that you know the difference between a vigilante and a gangster, yet keep arguing as if you don't.


I do understand the difference?

Edit: Better question. Do you think the Punisher is Evil?

Since you have edited your question:
Again, stopped reading Punisher a long time ago. But yes, in his original incarnation, most definitely. In his own title in the 1990ies? Definitely a question of grey vs black morality. He was basically a Complete Monster Psycho when he first showed up in Spidey and DD. But again, far more nuanced in his own book.

[endoperez]

--Except they aren't evil things because your character doesn't cannonically kill them.

No, that's not the reason. The actions the player does are evil. The dead pedestrians don't make the plot any worse, but they can make the player feel worse. If the player feels like he's doing something wrong, he will stop playing. The plot isn't the problem there!



But you are going to be hard pressed to convince me that if my running around in circles for two hours isnt canon, why suddenly me accidentally running over a pedestrian while delivering pizza is. As it sounds like its just "because it -looks- bad".

Exactly this. It's evil because it looks like you're doing bad things, like killing dozens of innocent people. Not unforgivably evil, but it's more than some people can accept.




<---Well to avoid generalization I'd address those games.
A game like Pokemon...SNIP
SNIP ... Elder scrolls does frequently put you at odds with people to whom you have no choice but to murder.
As for the Attorney game.....Of course a game focused on LAW wouldn't have Cowboy justice.

That was kinda my point. Of course a game focused on CRIME would have the sort of system GTAV does. Of course a game where the player can steal and is then punished for his crimes has a similar system where the police are a threat. Of course different games do the same thing differently. You claimed all games do it like GTA V does, and that's not it.


---------Lastly. No no no no no. The salvation of the rebel forces (who are one side in a WAR, I.e. Everyone killing everyone) was bought with the death of thousands upon thousands of Empire lives. A base the size of a moon couldnt be run by a mere thousand people. Maybe if personnel where restricted to a base the size of the surface of the moon. But we see it is a nice three dimensional base. And murdering people who dont have names might impact the reader(or whatever) less, but that is a narrative thing, not a moral thing.

THIS right here is the key. The phrase "just as admirable as any anti hero/flawed-hero out there" isn't a moral statement, it's a narrative statement and an emotional, subjective statement. Morality of "what if it was real" doesn't enter the equation.

The questions you have to ask are "are these guys admirable" and "are these guys antiheroes/ flawed heroes"? TVTropes describes Michael as "Villain Protagonist and Anti-Villain", Franklin as "Villain Protagonist: Although he is probably the most anti-heroic out of the three." So maybe, maybe Franklin. If someone finds him as admirable as various well-loved heroic characters.
[/QUOTE]

[Tebryn]

Look, just forget Frank. I stopped reading Punisher somewhere around 1995, so he might have done a lot of things after that. You have locked in on HIM, instead of my argument, anyway. The character in GTA V that does this IS pure Evil. And you are FORCED to play as him, and do things he wants to do. THAT is my main argument.
Btw you keep telling me that you know the difference between a vigilante and a gangster, yet keep arguing as if you don't.



Since you have edited your question:
Again, stopped reading Punisher a long time ago. But yes, in his original incarnation, most definitely. In his own title in the 1990ies? Definitely a question of grey vs black morality. He was basically a Complete Monster Psycho when he first showed up in Spidey and DD. But again, far more nuanced in his own book.

Ok, that's perfect because it's why I kept going back to that. I do understand the distinction you're making. I keep arguing as if it doesn't matter or doesn't exist because you're throwing around terms like "Pure Evil". I get that you feel they're different but that's sort of where I'm coming into this with a problem over your criticism.

You keep asserting that the GTAV people are evil because they're doing all these bad things because they're out for themselves. You then turn around, point to another character who does the same stuff, call them evil, but you're ok with that because they're doing it to "protect" people.

So my counter argument against your claims is that you're not actually concerned with the evil a character does. You're concerned about the reasons those characters do these evil things. Torture is ok when it's being done to find the bomb that's going to blow up an orphanage. It's not ok when it's going to get you the answer to where some @#$!head stashed your meth. And that's important for someone who wants to recommend you a game! There are tons of jerkass characters who do "bad things for good reasons", a set up you seem ok with.

[Maxios]

You have locked in on HIM, instead of my argument, anyway. The character in GTA V that does this IS pure Evil. And you are FORCED to play as him, and do things he wants to do. THAT is my main argument.
Trevor is not pure Evil. He's definitely not a good guy, and he's clearly insane. He does, however, several good deeds throughout the course of the game. He also has some redeeming qualities (though they don't excuse some of his more horrid acts). Note that during the torture scene, he isn't torturing Mr. K for the hell of it. A very corrupt, very nasty government agent is making him do it.

Trevor also chooses to spare Mr. K when said government agent orders Trevor to kill him, and Trevor delivers a speech on why torture never works. The torture scene is also not played for laughs, or included just for shock value. It's supposed to be serious political commentary on the horrors of torture. Is it out of place in a mostly lighthearted game like GTA V? Yeah. Is it disturbing? Definitely. But does it serve its purpose well, and open the player's eyes to just how godawful torture is? Yes.

Side note: in your original post, you seem to imply that all three of the playable characters are bad guys. Michael isn't, he's just doing the only thing he knows how to do, and at the end of the game he's gone legit as a movie producer.
He's, at most, Chaotic Neutral. Franklin just wants to get out of the hood, and make some money while he's at it. Dan Houser has even said that Franklin would be content working a legal job, as long as it got him out of the ghetto. At the start of the game, he's sort of on the path to that (though he doesn't realize that the owner of the car dealership he works for is a white-collar criminal.)

[The_Jackal]

SimCity is arguably a sandbox game where you can get enjoyment out of not being evil. The Tycoon games as well.

Not that it doesn't make being evil fun in its own way.......heh heh. *opens the lion cage in the zoo*

Not remotely similar games. In point of fact, my term 'sandbox' is probably not totally apt. But nevertheless, my point stands: The fun is in breaking the rules. The developers build an automated world populated with people to stab, shoot and run over. Really, the 'good-evil' thing is entirely back-story. If you want to feel like a good guy, pretend everyone else in GTA V is a Nazi. Problem solved.

In all seriousness, the GTA games play to type. The audience for GTA is the same audience for Breaking Bad or the Sopranos or Dexter. If that's not your cup of tea, so be it, but I think you're only hindering your own fun by applying a moral code to what is, at the end of the day, harmless fun.

[Grinner]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Bully. I can't compare it to GTA V, not having played GTA V yet, but it follows the same concept as most of the GTA games while being less...murderous.

[chiasaur11]

I don't see how Franklin and Michael are good people. What good deeds do they do? Sure, they don't revel in doing bad stuff and most of the crimes they do are to just to protect their own lives but they still don't really do any good deeds.

Well, the running people over isn't in self defense.

And Michael's response to, well, everything is excessive.

Now, the Boss? Yes. She is a murderous psychopath, whose friends are murderous psychopaths, but at heart she's the best friend you could ever have.

Also, saved America from terrorists. So, you know, that's points.

[Milo v3]

Well, the running people over isn't in self defense.

I've still only ran over one person in the game, when I wasn't running away from the cops. Then I immediately called the ambulance. Cause that's what I think Franklin would do.

Idk why people keep using running people over and stuff as signs the characters are evil, when you don't have to do it. The game just doesn't stop you from doing it. It's a sandbox game, if you commit random crimes like running people over it your fault.

[Cerlis]

It wasn't the swearing. I don't mind swearing. I do mind bad writing.

What got me, was the lack of any direction at all, beyond: Here you are, do this. And then I never found where I was supposed to do more than the one that was jammed in my face. Perhaps I'm too used to games giving me even a vague clue of where I'm going. I actually gave up once I ended up chased by the police just looking for my objective. I hadn't even done anything 'bad'.

All that said, I'll admit I'm the first person to disregard an opinion of someone who's only played a little bit of a game. The only reason I didn't disregard my opinion is because it's mine.
Well i've met and seen/heard people who talk and yell like him. I dont see any reason to consider it bad writing. Nor any reason to come to any form of conclusion early in the game.

And any major objectives are displayed on the map. So i dont know what you missed. Of course basically every great game in existence (zelda, Tome Raider, Halo, Mario games) have given many players moments where they dont know what they are suppose to do.

And an opinion being one's self is no reason to not disregard it. Its easy to identify when oneself has a bias on a subject and doesn't know enough about it to make a logical judgement call on it. I myself easily defer to people who know better (though i try to get them to explain).

But why did you feel the need to comment your impression that you seem to say was formed based off game-play and writing, when the matter is the "evil"ness of GTA?



For me the "all that driving over people is non-canon" argument really only holds water in a game like Assassin's Creed, where you're not fully synchronized but still able to interact with the world.

No it holds water here. Because any random people you accidentally or purposefully kill has no impact on the Story, and by that i mean its NOT part of the story. It is just game mechanics.. When i do street racing i try to get ahead of the pack as quickly as possible. And each time i forget that if i'm going to drive in between the other cars that the flag-person is going to get run over. But though her Doll "dies" she just reappears for the next race. She is one of thousands of faceless mooks that have no impact on the game. That you can leave alone, scare or even kill. Because its a sandbox game and you can do whatever.

See that is not how Video Game stories work. in another game there is an NPC who is at risk of being executed. Now you can go straight for his executioners and save his life (presumeably, he is very injured) or you can focus on other bad guys first and if you do he gets killed and his friend mourns his death. Now which version is canon? Well obviously the one alluded to later in the story. When the next patch comes out if he is alive then one version is canon, if he is dead the other. What the player interacted with and did in that situation is irrelevant to the plot, or rather is not actually IN the plot.
And this holds true for GTA, unless I am unaware of some Karma factor where you get your ass kicked so much in proportion to all the people you snuff. It is entirely physically possible to obey all traffic laws (except maybe chase scenes), avoid unnecessary deaths . Not accidentally kill any passers bye and still win the game. Any mass murder sprees are a construct of the fact that it is so easy to cause mayhem, especially by ACCIDENT that they cant have the penalty be to hard. Or this wouldn't be GTA, this would be "survive in prison".


-------------------------

No it's not okay. And the rest I definitely disagree with. Including "arbitrary".
A vigilante and a gangster are both criminals (unless the vigilante is sanctioned by the rulers, like say Shepard in the ME games, even Paragon Shep is a murderer, by your standards).
But more to the point, a vigilante does what he does to help others, and to punish criminals. A gangster or criminal or murdered does what he or she does to earn easy money, or simply to hurt others for the lulz. That is a HUGE difference.

so basically its ok for protagonists to commit horrible atrocities to humanity as long as they do it to people with a record, in order to help someone out. I Love (/sarcasm) the notion of criminals being less than human. The problem is that many games are effected by a societal view of "its ok to murder people we dont like" :belkar:

Also Franklin and Micheal do almost all their criminal work in order to protect their loved ones. First big bank job Micheal needs 2.5 million dollars to keep a Gang Lord from attacking his family. And Franklin is putting his life on the line in order to help out the one person he has met that has had faith and confidence in him. And i dont know how "the stupid" bank heist went (I'd like to point out that IN-GAME they refer to the violent bank heist that risks people's deaths as "stupid"), but i picked the "smart" option. We got in and out with about 5 mill without hurting a single person (well one of our criminals fell off his bike, and alot of police cars have big dents in them...).


NOT the point. I want a game LIKE GTA, aka modern city sandbox with tons of freedom.

They have that. its called Grand Theft Auto V


Yes, it's not out on PC yet, but anyway. I keep looking at the pictures of it going "that's awesome" but then I see the actual scripted events, and hell no. First of all I hate games with switching protagonists, I want a single person that I can play as "me". But the main problem is simply that well... If you have seen my rant against Breaking Bad then you already know my issue.

But I still feel cheated...
Saints row is pretty awesome (only played 2 and 3) and the customizeability of your protagonist is just so awesome. My girl was based off bayonetta. The strong protagonist "get stuff done" but "Heart of Gold" mentality really fit her Mother Russian Bear theme..

But other than the fact that Saints Row is basically an over the top GTA, the main difference is that SR is more sandboxy and caters to wish fulfillment badassery, while GTAs seem to be more focused on story (and most good stories have protagonists with in depth personalities. Saints Row personality is basically "screw everyone who gets in the way of me and my crew"



No, that's not the reason. The actions the player does are evil. The dead pedestrians don't make the plot any worse, but they can make the player feel worse. If the player feels like he's doing something wrong, he will stop playing. The plot isn't the problem there!
Hey, people are blaming the characters because of what some players do. If you don't want to play the game because you dont like killing random pedestrians, just dont do that. I dont. I play my character's heroically. Actually the best way to avoid this is to take out the violence (kinda defeats the purpose) or the random citizens who aren't bad guys (kinda defeats the purpose). If you dont like randomly killing people, dont do it. If you dont like accidentally or intentionally killing people then well dont play Assassin's Creed, Tomb Raider. Mario Brothers, Jack 2,3+ The Elder Scrolls series, Dynasty Warriors, Final Fantasy. Or basically any game in existence where bad guys aren't just "knocked out" (naturally this omits any games without fighting).


Exactly this. It's evil because it looks like you're doing bad things, like killing dozens of innocent people. Not unforgivably evil, but it's more than some people can accept.

So are you trying to say that Micheal literally in the story ran around in circles for two hours jumping up and down....Or that its evil to pretend to kill someone? Cus you just said "it's evil because it looks like you're doing bad things..." Is it evil whenever i want to play Dungeons and Dragons and kill stuff. Or when I LARP. Or only when we play a scenario where i pretend to kill civilians (because Guards, adventurers and criminals are ok to kill cus they aren't people)


That was kinda my point. Of course a game focused on CRIME would have the sort of system GTAV does. Of course a game where the player can steal and is then punished for his crimes has a similar system where the police are a threat. Of course different games do the same thing differently. You claimed all games do it like GTA V does, and that's not it.
Well my point was that every game either does the same thing or blatantly ignores reality (such as blacking out effects). The only difference is that GTA is more realistic about it. You COULD have a faux sandbox game where you stole stuff, could do random missions.......and magically all bad guys and police dont have guns, and you just run away from them or "knock them out" with kung fu. And its physically possible to fight those bad guys and police with Kung fu but for no reason at all you cant hurt all the people walking around. Only talk to them for quests.
GTA's "crime" is giving you the option of being able to initiate combat with whoever. its Crime is being someone realistic.


THIS right here is the key. The phrase "just as admirable as any anti hero/flawed-hero out there" isn't a moral statement, it's a narrative statement and an emotional, subjective statement. Morality of "what if it was real" doesn't enter the equation.

The questions you have to ask are "are these guys admirable" and "are these guys antiheroes/ flawed heroes"? TVTropes describes Michael as "Villain Protagonist and Anti-Villain", Franklin as "Villain Protagonist: Although he is probably the most anti-heroic out of the three." So maybe, maybe Franklin. If someone finds him as admirable as various well-loved heroic characters.

Well i dont think i'm allowed to speak my personal opinion about someone who thinks that some people are good guys because they only kill bad people who dont have names. (though i think:elan: might)

And I am obviously in the minority, so i fail to see what the opinions of a few tropers have anything to do with facts.

The facts are that all the civilians walking around are faceless mooks* who are basically walking rag dolls, that the player has the ability to harm them, That the main characters fall into white and Grey morality syndrome (or whatever you want to call it).

This isn't Rampant evil. this is a story about some guys who have some great qualities but due to circumstances their skills and life falls into a life of crime, and this is their story.

*Before someone jumps on this, I talked about the morality of Mook killage like in starwars because its hypocritical to be for one intentional senseless slaughter just because they are badguys, but against sometimes/sometimes-not intentional senseless slaughter of NPCs who happen to look and pretend to be people in game. If we are calling into question games who's protagonists senselessly kill tons of people then i'd like to talk to Mario about his rampant killing of thousands of Goombas (who are magically mind-raped Citizens of the Mushroom kingdom). But the fact is that by myself i wouldn't do that. Because i know its just a game and the enemies "dying" is just a way to get rid of a creep (creep as in an NPC who's entire purpose is to be in the way, or fought, the MMO term)


Trevor also chooses to spare Mr. K when said government agent orders Trevor to kill him, and Trevor delivers a speech on why torture never works. The torture scene is also not played for laughs, or included just for shock value. It's supposed to be serious political commentary on the horrors of torture. Is it out of place in a mostly lighthearted game like GTA V? Yeah. Is it disturbing? Definitely. But does it serve its purpose well, and open the player's eyes to just how godawful torture is? Yes.

Thank god there are game makers(or i guess game maker writers) out there with the guts to tease "the line" in order to make people think about life and serious issues some would just like to not think about.



He's, at most, Chaotic Neutral. Franklin just wants to get out of the hood, and make some money while he's at it. Dan Houser has even said that Franklin would be content working a legal job, as long as it got him out of the ghetto. At the start of the game, he's sort of on the path to that (though he doesn't realize that the owner of the car dealership he works for is a white-collar criminal.) Yea thats it. Micheal is a decent guy. He just has rage issues and is an adrenaline junkie who doesn't know any other way to protect his family than with "what he knows". Thats his character flaw. If anything I hope it would make people more sympathetic to people who happen to be criminals since many do it because they are stuck in that life. Like Franklin. I've been watching his character and you see him do this job and that job to look out for his friends and family. All of whom tell him he is living his life wrong and doesn't know anything. So its no surprise when he latches on to Micheal who is the only person who gives a rats ass about him and KNOWS that he is smart and skilled. Hell he is THE modern almost Tragic hero. So many kids in real life get sucked into the gang life, and Franklin is that guy. I love that conversation at the beginning where Micheal tells him to go to College.


The fun is in breaking the rules. The developers build an automated world populated with people to stab, shoot and run over.
So far I've yet to see a single reason to go on a murder spree or anything like that. committing rampant crime will just force you to spend 5 minutes running from the cops. The only time outside of missions i was ever chased by cops was in two separate incidents when some guys started a fight (my running theory is they took offense to me bumping into them?) and i kinda defended myself a little to hard (with my fists, no reason to pull a gun on civilians).

Anyway, my point was that in this game and in saints row 3 i noticed how there is no real incentive to cause trouble. unless you want to play "how long can i live at 5 stars). It just gets you dead (and you lose all your cash).

If anything i personally believe that they purposefully put you in so many missions where the NPCs drop you off in random locations just to give you an excuse to randomly steal cars. Cus i know otherwise i'd just stick with my cars.


I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Bully. I can't compare it to GTA V, not having played GTA V yet, but it follows the same concept as most of the GTA games while being less...murderous.
And thus the only difference is that 1) you are a kid and 2 ) you cant kill people. And they COULD make a GTA game where cops chased you down and you had to fist fight them and people got at worst "knocked out"

Might not even defeat the purpose. But Bully still lets you commit "crimes' get away with it, and randomly attack people.


Well, the running people over isn't in self defense.

And only crappy players run over people with any frequency. Learn to break so you dont drive on the sidewalks. This is also why i play Franklin when driving most of the time. With his special you dont need to accidentally run into anything. Much less any walking bean bags.


I've still only ran over one person in the game, when I wasn't running away from the cops. Then I immediately called the ambulance. Cause that's what I think Franklin would do.
I...actually didnt know you could do this. Thanks for the tip! Worst part of Fable 1 was accidentally killing traveling merchants cus they got to close to you!


Idk why people keep using running people over and stuff as signs the characters are evil, when you don't have to do it. The game just doesn't stop you from doing it. That was well put and on the nose. like i said a little bit above that you only ever accidentally hurt people if you do badly, and half of that is just that its a populated world , a world in which you have guns. So accidents are going to happen.

[endoperez]

I don't understand your counter-arguments. I'm totally flabbergasted. I can't argue against you because I don't understand your view. Your view is too different from how I think about a fictional character's morality.

It's like the time someone claimed a story with evil orcs (or other always-evil mooks) is racist towards orcs, who are real fictional people too. I don't understand the premise.

That said, there's nothing wrong with not thinking like I do. I'm stepping out of the discussion, not out of disrespect or anything like that. I just don't understand you. Have fun! :smallsmile:

[Triaxx]

Actually it's not a matter of bias. I was actually excited because I'd heard such good things about the series, and the game turned out to be to boring.

[Burley]

So, I ended up reading more of this thread than I intended to, and I just want to say: I don't understand how any arguement/debate could exist.

Setting aside any thought of "What is Morality?" this game's characters constantly and willing perform reprehensible acts that, within the narrative society they exist in, ends the lives of thousands of "people." Do I think that the player is evil? Not necissarily. Do I think the writers/developers are evil? Not necissarily, though they have a track record. Do I think the game puts you in control of three villains and sets you upon a world to sow evil? Yes, absolutely.

Maybe you begin by stealing cars and beating the spit out of people with some semblance of legal right, but you are soon thrust into hours upon hours of murder and theft. The game's HUD features a mechanic that shows you, with pretty flashing stars, that you are breaking clearly defined laws (modeled on real-world laws) in the game. When you use a phone to call the police to assist you, murder them for their guns, get in the police vehicle and lead a chase around the city, in the hopes of getting 5 stars, I feel that the game is rewarding deviant thought.

But, it is thought, not behaviour. The game isn't evil, the characters are. While I refuse to play it, I won't speak ill of those who do.


Now, if you want a great sandbox game with 3rd person shooting, play inFamous. You can choose good and evil and the story will flow in either direction to follow you. Plus, powers are cooler than guns.

[Milo v3]

When you use a phone to call the police to assist you, murder them for their guns, get in the police vehicle and lead a chase around the city, in the hopes of getting 5 stars, I feel that the game is rewarding deviant thought.

But, it is thought, not behaviour. The game isn't evil, the characters are. While I refuse to play it, I won't speak ill of those who do.

What?.....
That doesn't fit any of the characters at all...
I'm pretty sure that the characters aren't been evil in that situation, that's the player. The game doesn't reward you for doing any of that, other than responding in a realistic manner in that cops come....
The player decided to "Make The Character Do That". That doesn't make the character evil.

[Tebryn]

So, I ended up reading more of this thread than I intended to, and I just want to say: I don't understand how any arguement/debate could exist.

Setting aside any thought of "What is Morality?" this game's characters constantly and willing perform reprehensible acts that, within the narrative society they exist in, ends the lives of thousands of "people." Do I think that the player is evil? Not necissarily. Do I think the writers/developers are evil? Not necissarily, though they have a track record. Do I think the game puts you in control of three villains and sets you upon a world to sow evil? Yes, absolutely.

Maybe you begin by stealing cars and beating the spit out of people with some semblance of legal right, but you are soon thrust into hours upon hours of murder and theft. The game's HUD features a mechanic that shows you, with pretty flashing stars, that you are breaking clearly defined laws (modeled on real-world laws) in the game. When you use a phone to call the police to assist you, murder them for their guns, get in the police vehicle and lead a chase around the city, in the hopes of getting 5 stars, I feel that the game is rewarding deviant thought.

But, it is thought, not behaviour. The game isn't evil, the characters are. While I refuse to play it, I won't speak ill of those who do.


Now, if you want a great sandbox game with 3rd person shooting, play inFamous. You can choose good and evil and the story will flow in either direction to follow you. Plus, powers are cooler than guns.

The argument exists because there are people who can play characters/games that don't align with their own personal opinions on the world and find the argument -against- doing that to be...wrong? Or do you mean the argument that the people in these games are doing bad things? Because I'd agree with you there.


What?.....
That doesn't fit any of the characters at all...
I'm pretty sure that the characters aren't been evil in that situation, that's the player. The game doesn't reward you for doing any of that, other than responding in a realistic manner in that cops come....
The player decided to "Make The Character Do That". That doesn't make the character evil.

It...doesn't make the player "evil" either? They're not actually out there killing/harming real people or actual property. It's just a game.

[Milo v3]

It...doesn't make the player "evil" either? They're not actually out there killing/harming real people or actual property. It's just a game.

I'm merely saying they are responsible for the actions not the characters been "Evil", though looking back at my wording I can understand how you could think I was saying people playing the game are evil.

Though they are still responsible for killing the game civilians, not the characters.

[Winthur]

This whole thread is the stupidest discussion thread of all time with overly sensitive people wanting a game that has all the freedom they could possibly want as long as that freedom doesn't involve them commiting cartoonish crimes on virtual people, which kinda contradicts the idea of freedom. Lol. Lel, even.

[Tebryn]

I'm merely saying they are responsible for the actions not the characters been "Evil", though looking back at my wording I can understand how you could think I was saying people playing the game are evil.

Though they are still responsible for killing the game civilians, not the characters.

I sorta got where you were coming from, I simply meant that it doesn't matter if you're killing them or not. They're not actual lives, they're just code.


This whole thread is the stupidest discussion thread of all time with overly sensitive people wanting a game that has all the freedom they could possibly want as long as that freedom doesn't involve them commiting cartoonish crimes on virtual people, which kinda contradicts the idea of freedom. Lol. Lel, even.

We're still glad you're participating. :smallsmile:

[Avilan the Grey]

Ok, that's perfect because it's why I kept going back to that. I do understand the distinction you're making. I keep arguing as if it doesn't matter or doesn't exist because you're throwing around terms like "Pure Evil". I get that you feel they're different but that's sort of where I'm coming into this with a problem over your criticism.

You keep asserting that the GTAV people are evil because they're doing all these bad things because they're out for themselves. You then turn around, point to another character who does the same stuff, call them evil, but you're ok with that because they're doing it to "protect" people.

So my counter argument against your claims is that you're not actually concerned with the evil a character does. You're concerned about the reasons those characters do these evil things. Torture is ok when it's being done to find the bomb that's going to blow up an orphanage. It's not ok when it's going to get you the answer to where some @#$!head stashed your meth. And that's important for someone who wants to recommend you a game! There are tons of jerkass characters who do "bad things for good reasons", a set up you seem ok with.

Never said torture was okay. It's why I detest "24".
And as I said, your definition of evil in games do incorporate 99% of all protagonists. From Pacman (he EATS the ghosts!) to Paragon Shepard.

[Tebryn]

I haven't defined what I think is evil? You're the one who keeps throwing the term about, I'm merely discussing with you on your terms so I don't know how you can assert anything about my definition of it? I don't find any of the characters in GTAV to be evil or any character in Breaking Bad or Torture in video games or murder in video games as evil either. And that's where we disagree and I'm certainly not going to convince you of the contrary and you won't either. So it's been fun :smallsmile:

[factotum]

with overly sensitive people wanting a game that has all the freedom they could possibly want as long as that freedom doesn't involve them commiting cartoonish crimes on virtual people, which kinda contradicts the idea of freedom.

You seem to have missed the main point, which is that you're being forced to do these things as part of the game's storyline. It's entirely possible to have open world sandbox games where the story ISN'T requiring you to murder your way through half the city. Sure, you can still play games like that by murdering your way through half the city, but that's *your* choice, not something forced on you in order to get to the next story mission!

[Winthur]

You seem to have missed the main point, which is that you're being forced to do these things as part of the game's storyline. It's entirely possible to have open world sandbox games where the story ISN'T requiring you to murder your way through half the city. Sure, you can still play games like that by murdering your way through half the city, but that's *your* choice, not something forced on you in order to get to the next story mission!

You're also not ever compelled to play through the storyline. I know people who play GTA just to screw around.

Also, you're acting as if GTA missions only involved killing sprees and rampages, and completely ignore:
-car chases
-time trials
-all the taxi/paramedic/vigilante/firefighter/what else is there missions
-gimmicky missions like the ones with RC vehicles
etc.

I'm just worried there are people who purposefully skip a lot of what the gaming genre has to offer because apparently it's drastic. I'm one of the most sensitive people I know and yet I played Mortal Kombat since I was 5.

When I was in primary school, I had an English schoolbook which taught you tenses and phrases by dialogue examples and it featured two teenagers talking about Sim City and then denouncing Quake as too violent.

At the time I thought it was lame that two teenagers of all people would be disgusted with Quake and that the world doesn't work like the moral guardian in charge of the schoolbook thinks it should. Apparently I was wrong now.

I just don't get it.

Also, really - if you want a total freedom in a city based game then you should be free to commit GTA style crime. It's way easier to make a game about a criminal who in his spare time does honest jobs than it is about a good guy who in his spare time drives over people and kills them because they wrecked his car. What should happen in the latter case? A game being like "But that's not what McJusticeman would do!"?

[endoperez]

This whole thread is the stupidest discussion thread of all time with overly sensitive people wanting a game that has all the freedom they could possibly want as long as that freedom doesn't involve them commiting cartoonish crimes on virtual people, which kinda contradicts the idea of freedom. Lol. Lel, even.

http://store.steampowered.com/app/24010/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dTcJBM2eEg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISRA4Hu82I0


These games exist. They have no violence, no "cartoonish crimes". What's so stupid about people wanting something like these on a big virtual world?

[Burley]

What?.....
That doesn't fit any of the characters at all...
I'm pretty sure that the characters aren't been evil in that situation, that's the player. The game doesn't reward you for doing any of that, other than responding in a realistic manner in that cops come....
The player decided to "Make The Character Do That". That doesn't make the character evil.

It doesn't make anybody evil. However, it is a deviant act (within the game) and the thought process to perform it is rewarded by making the game... Better?
Look: in most games, the more flashing stars, the better, right? Unless they're floating around you're head, they're an indication that you are progressing through the game, that you're doing well, and/or you're going to get a bonus.
Also, the exciting part of the GTA games, the parts that make your palms clammy and your heart race are when the police are chasing you. Other games , like Rayman Legends have those chase levels that give that same feeling. But, being chased by lava or a hoard of dragons is different than being chased by police.
The police only chase you when you mess up. The game gets exciting when you break the law, and, if the purpose of the game is to be exciting and fun, the game rewards the player's deviant thought with exciting gameplay, with a direct correlation between the two factors.

Like I said before, if you keep it in the game, no harm, no foul. But, some people, myself included, don't like to think those thoughts.

Personally, because of some neurological stuff, I have problems separating an idea from the emotions surrounding the idea. When my roommate plays GTAV, even if I only hear it, I sometimes become nausiated or dizzy with the surge of emotions, and without the adrenaline of the actual activity described in the game to shadow the emotional response. Simply put: I become physically ill when I recreate a real-world evil act on a game. That's just me, though, and does not discredit my statements or those of my peers.

[Winthur]

These games exist. They have no violence, no "cartoonish crimes". What's so stupid about people wanting something like these on a big virtual world?

Imagine if we took a big map from a GTA game, like GTA San Andreas, and then the game would revolve around driving a train or a street cleaning vehicle. You don't get out of the train, you don't get out of the vehicle, you don't even get to do anything except perform with those vehicles. GOTY material right there, is it?

The video you showed me shows the player screwing around and playing GTA-lite (totalling cars and driving at obviously dangerous high speeds) in an obvious satire fashion because nobody takes those games seriously because they're crappy budget titles. I guess that ramming a car is okay when it bounces off the street like a rubber ball and is good to go. At least nobody dies and no damage is done! Nothing evil happens!

A Hard Truck game would be a better representation of what you're trying to convey.

[endoperez]

Imagine if we took a big map from a GTA game, like GTA San Andreas, and then the game would revolve around driving a train or a street cleaning vehicle. You don't get out of the train, you don't get out of the vehicle, you don't even get to do anything except perform with those vehicles. GOTY material right there, is it?

The video you showed me shows the player screwing around and playing GTA-lite (totalling cars and driving at obviously dangerous high speeds) in an obvious satire fashion because nobody takes those games seriously because they're crappy budget titles. I guess that ramming a car is okay when it bounces off the street like a rubber ball and is good to go. At least nobody dies and no damage is done! Nothing evil happens!

A Hard Truck game would be a better representation of what you're trying to convey.


These games sell, even if they're budget titles. I don't know much about them myself, because I don't play them, and Hard Truck could well be an even better example of these sorts of games. However, some people do buy these games and play them without wrecking things.

[Winthur]

These games sell, even if they're budget titles. I don't know much about them myself, because I don't play them, and Hard Truck could well be an even better example of these sorts of games. However, some people do buy these games and play them without wrecking things.

Some people also play Facebook games. Doesn't mean you have to condone that kind of 'gaming'.

[endoperez]

Some people also play Facebook games. Doesn't mean you have to condone that kind of 'gaming'.

It's gaming all the same. Facebook or otherwise.

[factotum]

Some people also play Facebook games. Doesn't mean you have to condone that kind of 'gaming'.

People enjoy playing Facebook games, and I'm certainly not going to think less of them for doing so--if that counts as condoning it, then I'll happily condone away!

[warty goblin]

I'm just worried there are people who purposefully skip a lot of what the gaming genre has to offer because apparently it's drastic. I'm one of the most sensitive people I know and yet I played Mortal Kombat since I was 5.

Wait, you're actually worried that people aren't playing games full of criminal violence because they don't like games full of criminal violence? Did I get that right? Because that actually makes no sense. I mean the alternatives are either people play things they don't like (which is stupid) or everybody has exactly the same tastes (which is stupid and improbable). Or is this one of those you're having fun wrong sorts of things?



Some people also play Facebook games. Doesn't mean you have to condone that kind of 'gaming'.
So yes, I'm going with it's one of those you're having fun wrong sorts of things.

[Avilan the Grey]

Some people also play Facebook games. Doesn't mean you have to condone that kind of 'gaming'.

Excuse me, but why the ""? Or the choice of the word "condoning" for that matter?

[Maxios]

So, I ended up reading more of this thread than I intended to, and I just want to say: I don't understand how any arguement/debate could exist.

Setting aside any thought of "What is Morality?" this game's characters constantly and willing perform reprehensible acts that, within the narrative society they exist in, ends the lives of thousands of "people." Do I think that the player is evil? Not necissarily. Do I think the writers/developers are evil? Not necissarily, though they have a track record. Do I think the game puts you in control of three villains and sets you upon a world to sow evil? Yes, absolutely.

Maybe you begin by stealing cars and beating the spit out of people with some semblance of legal right, but you are soon thrust into hours upon hours of murder and theft. The game's HUD features a mechanic that shows you, with pretty flashing stars, that you are breaking clearly defined laws (modeled on real-world laws) in the game. When you use a phone to call the police to assist you, murder them for their guns, get in the police vehicle and lead a chase around the city, in the hopes of getting 5 stars, I feel that the game is rewarding deviant thought.

But, it is thought, not behaviour. The game isn't evil, the characters are. While I refuse to play it, I won't speak ill of those who do.

Now, if you want a great sandbox game with 3rd person shooting, play inFamous. You can choose good and evil and the story will flow in either direction to follow you. Plus, powers are cooler than guns.

First, the three characters are not "villains" (though Trevor could be considered one due to some of his more chaotic actions.) The game does not set you upon the world to sow evil. It does not reward the player for commiting crimes (in freeroam, at least.) Like I said earlier in this thread, Michael and Franklin don't even fall into the evil side of the alignment pool. Michael is chaotic neutral, and Franklin is either that or true neutral.

Second, the "pretty flashing stars" aren't a means of telling the player, "Great job sport, you're truly a dangerous felon!" They exist to tell the player that their actions have caused them to become fugitives (hell, the penalties for committing crimes in this are stronger than the earlier entries in the series.) Also, the stars only flash if you're hidden.

Third, at no point in the game are you told to call the police and kill them. You're not even told you can call any sort of emergency service until towards the end of the game (though many players probably figured it out by looking in their contacts.) Claiming that the game is rewarding deviant thought for that is like claiming a hack-and-slash D&D session encourages me to become a murderhobo. Or that the Elder Scrolls series encourages deviant thought since you can join a group of assassins, or a guild composed of thieves.

Fourth, inFamous is an amazing series (well, at least the first two are. The third one doesn't interest me at all.) Your comments about powers being cooler than guns made me chuckle though, since I just finished reading a TvTropes page that discussed just how similar Cole's powers are to standard FPS weapons.


Also, the exciting part of the GTA games, the parts that make your palms clammy and your heart race are when the police are chasing you. Other games , like Rayman Legends have those chase levels that give that same feeling. But, being chased by lava or a hoard of dragons is different than being chased by police.
The police only chase you when you mess up. The game gets exciting when you break the law, and, if the purpose of the game is to be exciting and fun, the game rewards the player's deviant thought with exciting gameplay, with a direct correlation between the two factors.


That's not the only exciting part. At least, not for me anyway. I get excited when I discover a funny easter-egg in the extremely detailed city, when I play the golf minigame and somehow get a hole-in-one, or when I watch one of the extremely well-written cutscenes.
My god, I used a lot of scare quotes in this post...

[Winthur]

Excuse me, but why the ""? Or the choice of the word "condoning" for that matter?

I simply don't see any value whatsoever in run-of-the-mill cheap schematic vehicle simulators - and the only people I've ever seen playing them are YouTube satirics. Neither do I see them in Facebook games whose entire gameplay seems to consist of "bugging your friends to play with them" and finding useless rewards (that you have to announce to the entire world through your Facebook feed) without exerting any effort.

Gaming (Other) doesn't even have threads about Farmville, Train Simulator or even freaking Gone Home. Because these games aren't worth talking about in any context other than "how the developers prefer to adhere to audiences that have no expectations towards what they play". Because you know and I know that those games have little value. There's nothing to discuss about them. They're not competitive or particularly memorable in any way. The gameplay is miniscule.

I'm out of this thread.

[endoperez]

Because these games aren't worth talking about in any context other than "how the developers prefer to adhere to audiences that have no expectations towards what they play". Because you know and I know that those games have little value. There's nothing to discuss about them.

I disagree on many points, but you're out of this thread, so whatever.

[Milo v3]

It doesn't make anybody evil. However, it is a deviant act (within the game) and the thought process to perform it is rewarded by making the game... Better?
If you look at the previous page, u'll see I already said that I wasn't saying that they were evil, just that they were the ones responsible for the sort of actions described not the characters. :smallsigh:


Look: in most games, the more flashing stars, the better, right? Unless they're floating around you're head, they're an indication that you are progressing through the game, that you're doing well, and/or you're going to get a bonus.
As said by Maxios, they only flash when your hidden as the sign that the stars are going to go away. Also, I never got an indication from them they were a good thing. It's an indicator of how dangerous people think you are at the time and how much dangerous stuff they are sending to "capture or kill you". Most sandbox games have this, you know those things that say if cops are after you or the military or whatever. In this game I found the stars most useful for determining whether or not I will got shot by police because at 2 stars, they start to fire at you. That's what the stars are for, telling the player how much people are trying to kill them.


Also, the exciting part of the GTA games, the parts that make your palms clammy and your heart race are when the police are chasing you. Other games , like Rayman Legends have those chase levels that give that same feeling. But, being chased by lava or a hoard of dragons is different than being chased by police.
In my experience the flying a plane parts did that to people I know. One guy was doing a plane challenge, started dry and finished it ridiculously sweety just because of how focused he was at trying to fly the damn thing. Personally, I really really don't like when the police chase me, because then my awesome car gets bullet holes in it, I much prefer being an amazingly skilled driver weaving through amazingly tight traffic or going allout on a nearly empty highway around the entire island. For me, driving is what makes my heart race.


The police only chase you when you mess up. The game gets exciting when you break the law, and, if the purpose of the game is to be exciting and fun, the game rewards the player's deviant thought with exciting gameplay, with a direct correlation between the two factors.
..... Are you suggesting the police should chase you in times where you haven't done anything or that they shouldn't come when you commit crimes?
Those are the only two alternatives. I think the realistic option of "when you commit crimes police are called", is the best one personally.....


Like I said before, if you keep it in the game, no harm, no foul. But, some people, myself included, don't like to think those thoughts.
Personally, because of some neurological stuff, I have problems separating an idea from the emotions surrounding the idea. When my roommate plays GTAV, even if I only hear it, I sometimes become nausiated or dizzy with the surge of emotions, and without the adrenaline of the actual activity described in the game to shadow the emotional response. Simply put: I become physically ill when I recreate a real-world evil act on a game. That's just me, though, and does not discredit my statements or those of my peers.
And that's fair enough, I just don't go around in the game recreating real world evil (I haven't got to the torture bit yet), so I don't think the game is a fault. But, if the environment you've interacted with it so far is as you have described I can understand your view.

Off-topic:
Because of how my brain is, I get colossal doses of certain "reward" drugs of the body. So I get physically sick if I go out and be social too much or if I'm around the girl I like.

[chiasaur11]

First, the three characters are not "villains" (though Trevor could be considered one due to some of his more chaotic actions.) The game does not set you upon the world to sow evil. It does not reward the player for commiting crimes (in freeroam, at least.) Like I said earlier in this thread, Michael and Franklin don't even fall into the evil side of the alignment pool. Michael is chaotic neutral, and Franklin is either that or true neutral.

Second, the "pretty flashing stars" aren't a means of telling the player, "Great job sport, you're truly a dangerous felon!" They exist to tell the player that their actions have caused them to become fugitives (hell, the penalties for committing crimes in this are stronger than the earlier entries in the series.) Also, the stars only flash if you're hidden.

Third, at no point in the game are you told to call the police and kill them. You're not even told you can call any sort of emergency service until towards the end of the game (though many players probably figured it out by looking in their contacts.) Claiming that the game is rewarding deviant thought for that is like claiming a hack-and-slash D&D session encourages me to become a murderhobo. Or that the Elder Scrolls series encourages deviant thought since you can join a group of assassins, or a guild composed of thieves.

Fourth, inFamous is an amazing series (well, at least the first two are. The third one doesn't interest me at all.) Your comments about powers being cooler than guns made me chuckle though, since I just finished reading a TvTropes page that discussed just how similar Cole's powers are to standard FPS weapons.



That's not the only exciting part. At least, not for me anyway. I get excited when I discover a funny easter-egg in the extremely detailed city, when I play the golf minigame and somehow get a hole-in-one, or when I watch one of the extremely well-written cutscenes.
My god, I used a lot of scare quotes in this post...

Haven't seen the whole game, but Trevor's evil, no question. Dude murders a guy for asking him to stop having sex with his girlfriend, then murders a whole biker gang as followup when, until just then, they'd been business partners and the relationship could have continued like that indefinitely. I mean, Boyd on Justified's a definite black hat, and he'd have Trevor shot as a public service. Plus, he sells people to a cannibal cult.

Michael's not as bad (neither is Johnny Gat, whose response to being accused of 300 murders is "I figure with the statute of limitations, it really should be closer to two-fiddy"), but he's horrible to his family, and his response to any form of social difficulty is criminal activity, and (unless the player has an exceptional commitment to avoiding lethal force) murder. Plus, well, he doesn't go anything good. Not actively trying to hurt innocent people when it doesn't benefit you isn't going to get you a sainthood. Plus, you know, friends with Trevor. Definite bad mark on his record.

Franklin? Okay, he's not a bad dude from what I've seen. Just runs with a bad crowd and has no idea how to say "Uh, no. This is a horrible idea. Go get killed on your own if you insist on it, but I'm not getting involved."

Going to nth the Sleeping Dogs recommendation. Wei Shen, the protagonist, is an undercover cop. He's trying to do his job, but he's torn because (classic cop movie drama here) he's getting attached to the people he's infiltrating. His actions are almost all in self defense, in pursuit of his duties (admitted, sometimes that's just keeping up his cover), in defense of others, or (in some cases) in pursuit of very justified revenge. The things he does, and has to do, eat him up inside. It doesn't hurt that the game's driving is good enough that you will very rarely run anyone over, even in crowded Hong Kong.

(Unless the player decides to go on a murder spree in a pig mask. Which, you know, you can do.)

All that said, Wei Shen is a very angry person. If seeing someone shoved into a fan headfirst, drowned in a toilet, or impaled on a swordfish makes you wince, well, might be best to not play this. Not seen many protagonists as brutal as the god of unpaid debts.

[Maxios]

Haven't seen the whole game, but Trevor's evil, no question. Dude murders a guy for asking him to stop having sex with his girlfriend, then murders a whole biker gang as followup when, until just then, they'd been business partners and the relationship could have continued like that indefinitely. I mean, Boyd on Justified's a definite black hat, and he'd have Trevor shot as a public service. Plus, he sells people to a cannibal cult.

Michael's not as bad (neither is Johnny Gat, whose response to being accused of 300 murders is "I figure with the statute of limitations, it really should be closer to two-fiddy"), but he's horrible to his family, and his response to any form of social difficulty is criminal activity, and (unless the player has an exceptional commitment to avoiding lethal force) murder. Plus, well, he doesn't go anything good. Not actively trying to hurt innocent people when it doesn't benefit you isn't going to get you a sainthood. Plus, you know, friends with Trevor. Definite bad mark on his record.

Franklin? Okay, he's not a bad dude from what I've seen. Just runs with a bad crowd and has no idea how to say "Uh, no. This is a horrible idea. Go get killed on your own if you insist on it, but I'm not getting involved."

Going to nth the Sleeping Dogs recommendation. Wei Shen, the protagonist, is an undercover cop. He's trying to do his job, but he's torn because (classic cop movie drama here) he's getting attached to the people he's infiltrating. His actions are almost all in self defense, in pursuit of his duties (admitted, sometimes that's just keeping up his cover), in defense of others, or (in some cases) in pursuit of very justified revenge. The things he does, and has to do, eat him up inside. It doesn't hurt that the game's driving is good enough that you will very rarely run anyone over, even in crowded Hong Kong.

(Unless the player decides to go on a murder spree in a pig mask. Which, you know, you can do.)

All that said, Wei Shen is a very angry person. If seeing someone shoved into a fan headfirst, drowned in a toilet, or impaled on a swordfish makes you wince, well, might be best to not play this. Not seen many protagonists as brutal as the god of unpaid debts.

First, Trevor and the Lost weren't business partners. Hell, they were at odds long before the game even starts. Though I agree with you about Trevor's murder of Johnny K being completely needless. Johnny's appearance in general felt shoe-horned in just to show off just how insane Trevor is.

Second, you have to keep in mind that Michael's family is also pretty horrible to him. His son is a lazy pothead who insults Michael constantly, his daughter is an egotistical party animal who will do anything to get famous, and his wife is a huge hypocrite who cheats on him constantly. Eventually, Michael's family leaves him. His son drugs him, shoves him out of his car (which he then steals), and takes a large sum of money out of Michael's private bank account. However, towards the end of the game, Michael and his family reconcile. They become close, stop arguing, and start acting like a real family.
And I wouldn't really call him and Trevor friends. Michael is disgusted at the majority of things Trevor does, and even helps Franklin kill him in one of the endings.

Third, I agree with you about Franklin. He's a massive enabler. I also felt that, compared to Michael and Trevor, he barely had any missions to expand upon his interactions with his friends and family.

[Hawriel]

Look, just forget Frank. I stopped reading Punisher somewhere around 1995, so he might have done a lot of things after that. You have locked in on HIM, instead of my argument, anyway. The character in GTA V that does this IS pure Evil. And you are FORCED to play as him, and do things he wants to do. THAT is my main argument.
Btw you keep telling me that you know the difference between a vigilante and a gangster, yet keep arguing as if you don't.



Since you have edited your question:
Again, stopped reading Punisher a long time ago. But yes, in his original incarnation, most definitely. In his own title in the 1990ies? Definitely a question of grey vs black morality. He was basically a Complete Monster Psycho when he first showed up in Spidey and DD. But again, far more nuanced in his own book.

Hypocrisy.

Frank Castle's character at it's core, is a person who is able and willing to commit horrible acts of violence on others. His motivation started as vengeance, then turned into an all consuming crusade. He is a fanatic to his own cause. He targets, and stalks people he believes are criminals. He then plans methodically how to kill them. In the process Frank will kill, maim, cause property damage, and commit various other acts of violent crimes. All in order to murder, and or cause maximum emotional pain in his target.

It does not matter if you have not read a Punisher Comic since 1995. The core of the character was the same then as it is now.

You are making excuses because you like Frank Castle.


On the point of "non-canon" acts of violence.

Any action the player makes in the game that is purely their own choice, has no impact on the actual characters character in game. So hitting a pedestrian while driving your car by mistake is not an evil act. It was a mistake made by the player.

It could be considered a crime, but its a video game. So it does not really matter. If people are so worked up about this, then you have two choices. Be more careful when driving your car around town. If, and when you do hit an innocent bystander with your car, stop the car, and wait for the police to show up. Take responsibility for your crime.

[Avilan the Grey]

Hypocrisy.

Frank Castle's character at it's core, is a person who is able and willing to commit horrible acts of violence on others. His motivation started as vengeance, then turned into an all consuming crusade. He is a fanatic to his own cause. He targets, and stalks people he believes are criminals. He then plans methodically how to kill them. In the process Frank will kill, maim, cause property damage, and commit various other acts of violent crimes. All in order to murder, and or cause maximum emotional pain in his target.

It does not matter if you have not read a Punisher Comic since 1995. The core of the character was the same then as it is now.

You are making excuses because you like Frank Castle.

We are all hypocrites, but that's beside the point.

No I am not excusing him, and I don't like him, I am trying to explain where I draw my line (and again, you have locked in on Frank, instead of my actual argument, and seem unable to let go):
I can play a violent vigilante, which, as I have pointed out, is 99% of all characters anyway; be it Shepard, the Warden, the Bhaalspawn, the Dragonborn, the Chosen One, the Lone Wanderer...
But I will not play a psychopath, a wanton murderer or a "professional" criminal.
You keep arguing that I am a hypocrite and that my morals doesn't make sense, and yet you do claim, over and over that you understand the difference... and you STILL show no sign of ACTUALLY understanding the difference. I don't know if you try to get a rouse out of me, or troll me, but your attitude and your arguments just doesn't add up.

What really creeps me out, though, is the people who laugh and mock the ones that cannot stand the torture scene, not only using the "it's only a game", but add on "so just relax and have fun". I am aware that the majority of these people are teenage boys (judging from other forums, and their grammar), but anyway I am interested in where THEIR line is, if they have one.

Oh and Trevor is definitely Evil with an E. He might have a "condition" that is diagnosable, or just ruined his brain with drugs, but as he is now, he is Evil. Torture an innocent man that doesn't know anything (and yes, even if he did, it would be utterly disgusting), killing a man for calling him out on cheating with his wife... Although I think Rockstar have pointed out by now that they basically made Trevor to fit how most people play their games, basically to troll the community.

[Milo v3]

I am aware that the majority of these people are teenage boys (judging from other forums, and their grammar), but anyway I am interested in where THEIR line is, if they have one.

As a teenaged male I find that abit offensive :smalltongue:

[Avilan the Grey]

As a teenaged male I find that abit offensive :smalltongue:

Don't be. It just means you have outgrown the need to shock others to prove your toughness. :smalltongue:

When I was 13-15, back in the days before the Interwebs, EVERYBODY my age read all the "worst" horror stories we could find, and watched all the bloodiest movies, just to prove to ourselves and eachother that we could handle it.

It is basically the "eating worms while the other kids watch" from kindergarden 8-10 years earlier, all over again.

[Milo v3]

Don't be. It just means you have outgrown the need to shock others to prove your toughness. :smalltongue:

When I was 13-15, back in the days before the Interwebs, EVERYBODY my age read all the "worst" horror stories we could find, and watched all the bloodiest movies, just to prove to ourselves and eachother that we could handle it.

It is basically the "eating worms while the other kids watch" from kindergarden 8-10 years earlier, all over again.

My father is a horror writer, he wouldn't let me near the worst horror stuff unless it was "so bad it's good" territory. :smalltongue:

[Tavar]

We are all hypocrites, but that's beside the point.
Not if he's saying you're being a hypocrite about this point, which is what he seems to be implying.



I can play a violent vigilante, which, as I have pointed out, is 99% of all characters anyway; be it Shepard, the Warden, the Bhaalspawn, the Dragonborn, the Chosen One, the Lone Wanderer...
But I will not play a psychopath, a wanton murderer or a "professional" criminal.
I'd point out that most of those aren't vigilante's, at least not really. To be a vigilante you have to operate without the sanction of a Temporal authority(Shepard, the Warden, and the Dragonborn in this way would certainly not qualify, and some of the others might as well).

But, here's the thing, and why you open yourself up to a charge of hypocrisy: a violent vigilante? They can easily be classified as a psychopath or wanton muderer. And, if money is involved, or they somehow make a living off what they do? They're a professional criminal. They might fight other criminals, but that's not exactly unknown.

Yes, there's certainly room for nuance, but I'm not sure you've really shown any in your posts.

[Avilan the Grey]

Not if he's saying you're being a hypocrite about this point, which is what he seems to be implying.


I'd point out that most of those aren't vigilante's, at least not really. To be a vigilante you have to operate without the sanction of a Temporal authority(Shepard, the Warden, and the Dragonborn in this way would certainly not qualify, and some of the others might as well).

But, here's the thing, and why you open yourself up to a charge of hypocrisy: a violent vigilante? They can easily be classified as a psychopath or wanton muderer. And, if money is involved, or they somehow make a living off what they do? They're a professional criminal. They might fight other criminals, but that's not exactly unknown.

Yes, there's certainly room for nuance, but I'm not sure you've really shown any in your posts.

Well, all I can say is that see a huge difference, and that I find it mindbogglnig that others cannot. End of discussion.

(Oh and I got that he is saying, and my response is simply that we are all hypocrites about SOMETHING. All of us. Without exception).

[druid91]

Thanks for all the info...

I know what the "point" of GTA is. The problem is that unlike say TES games, or Fallout, it's not a matter of choosing to do something evil (though I find the people boasting about how they kill every civilian in Skyrim... boring. No imagination whatsoever), but that you are FORCED to play evil, and FORCED to take part in scripted scenes where you commit sickening acts.

I have no problem gunning down someone in cold blood in ME, because it is MY choice, and that person has been a complete bastard to me, or endangered civilians or whatever.

Basically I want GTA's world, all the detail and complete openness, but with all the choices, and consequences, to be my own.
If I choose to rob a corner store, the cops should look for me. If I steal a car and run over all people I can see, I EXPECT to be gunned down.

...Also, it's difficult playing a game wanting the people who chase me to win... which is what would happen if I got hunted by the police in a GTA game...

(Of course I also find the fanboy crowd utterly distubing. The people who troll the Escapist reviewer because he only gave the game a 3,5 out of 5, because he hated the characters he had to play... and who also troll the female reviewers who dare only give the game a 9,5 out of 10 because of the lack of non-hookers in the game (except for the straw feminist you are supposed to mock even as a player, of course), and who openly mock anyone who do not enjoy the tooth pulling scene).

I mean, it's been a long, long time since I've played GTA... but as I recall, the more havoc you cause, the more the police come after you?

Also, the original Crackdown is pretty nice.

[Avilan the Grey]

I mean, it's been a long, long time since I've played GTA... but as I recall, the more havoc you cause, the more the police come after you?

Yes they do (AFAIK). This was a while ago, but I think the point about I just intended that part to be one of the GOOD things about the game.

[Morph Bark]

Outside of the suggestions like Saints Row, True Crime/Sleeping Dogs and Just Cause that have already been made, other open world games of this sort include Total Overdose and The Saboteur.

The first is set in Mexico during modern times and is rather over-the-top. The second is set during World War Two in occupied France.

[Maxios]

What really creeps me out, though, is the people who laugh and mock the ones that cannot stand the torture scene, not only using the "it's only a game", but add on "so just relax and have fun". I am aware that the majority of these people are teenage boys (judging from other forums, and their grammar), but anyway I am interested in where THEIR line is, if they have one.

Oh and Trevor is definitely Evil with an E. He might have a "condition" that is diagnosable, or just ruined his brain with drugs, but as he is now, he is Evil. Torture an innocent man that doesn't know anything (and yes, even if he did, it would be utterly disgusting), killing a man for calling him out on cheating with his wife... Although I think Rockstar have pointed out by now that they basically made Trevor to fit how most people play their games, basically to troll the community.

I agree with you about the people who mock other people for finding the torture scene disturbing, or not "fun to play." It's a torture scene meant to shock and disturb the player! The interactivity is only meant to add on to the horror, not make it "fun."

It's a sort of combination of both. He's heavily implied to be schizophrenic, and possibly bipolar. It's also mentioned that he uh...uses his product a lot (though I can't recall a scene in the game that actually shows him using it, or even by it.) Also, Ashley and Johnny weren't married. She was Johnny's on again and off again old lady (or whatever the biker term is.)


Of course I also find the fanboy crowd utterly distubing. The people who troll the Escapist reviewer because he only gave the game a 3,5 out of 5, because he hated the characters he had to play... and who also troll the female reviewers who dare only give the game a 9,5 out of 10 because of the lack of non-hookers in the game (except for the straw feminist you are supposed to mock even as a player, of course), and who openly mock anyone who do not enjoy the tooth pulling scene).

People "trolled" the Gamestop reviewer because that particular review is (for lack of a better term) gender-biased. From what I understand, any time she reviews a game with a male protagonist she gives it a lower score. But when she reviews a game with a female protagonist, she gives it a higher score. I do, however, agree with what she says about there not being enough female characters. I can probably count the amount of female characters who show up during the main storyline on my hands.

I don't really think Debra is supposed to be mocked. If the players disliked her for anything, it'd probably be her poor treatment of Floyd the Buttmonkey. Unless you mean Franklin's crazy aunt (I think Denise is her name), who was more an exercise nut/man crazy than a straw feminist.

[warty goblin]

I agree with you about the people who mock other people for finding the torture scene disturbing, or not "fun to play." It's a torture scene meant to shock and disturb the player! The interactivity is only meant to add on to the horror, not make it "fun."

As I said elsewhere, if games want to do serious not-fun things, that's fine. The place for such things however is probably not the middle of happy-fun-times sandbox fun.




People "trolled" the Gamestop reviewer because that particular review is (for lack of a better term) gender-biased. From what I understand, any time she reviews a game with a male protagonist she gives it a lower score. But when she reviews a game with a female protagonist, she gives it a higher score. I do, however, agree with what she says about there not being enough female characters. I can probably count the amount of female characters who show up during the main storyline on my hands.
Let's see here. A game review is a personal evaluation of something, based on the experience of the reviewer while playing. It's an inherently subjective thing; rooted in the particular reviewer's subjectivities, and how those color his or her experience of life. Gender, being gendered by society, the performance of gender within society, one's personal understanding and relation to gender norms and gender performance are very much things that color somebody's experience of something. Ergo they are completely valid considerations for a review, if they affected the reviewer's experience of the game. Whether or not they affect the enjoyment of somebody else is a matter of their subjectivities; maybe they don't mind that sort of thing*. A review is only as much use as your commonality with the reviewer.

And it's not like this is some tiny little pet peeve of an issue; it's the representation (or lack thereof) of half the human population.

*And maybe they should. Just because it's subjective doesn't mean it can't be judged.

[Maxios]

As I said elsewhere, if games want to do serious not-fun things, that's fine. The place for such things however is probably not the middle of happy-fun-times sandbox fun.




Let's see here. A game review is a personal evaluation of something, based on the experience of the reviewer while playing. It's an inherently subjective thing; rooted in the particular reviewer's subjectivities, and how those color his or her experience of life. Gender, being gendered by society, the performance of gender within society, one's personal understanding and relation to gender norms and gender performance are very much things that color somebody's experience of something. Ergo they are completely valid considerations for a review, if they affected the reviewer's experience of the game. Whether or not they affect the enjoyment of somebody else is a matter of their subjectivities; maybe they don't mind that sort of thing*. A review is only as much use as your commonality with the reviewer.

And it's not like this is some tiny little pet peeve of an issue; it's the representation (or lack thereof) of half the human population.

*And maybe they should. Just because it's subjective doesn't mean it can't be judged.


I've mentioned earlier in this thread that the torture scene does feel a little out of place compared to the tone of the rest of the game.

Exactly. A game review is, like you said, the opinion of one person (or, in some cases, a small group.) It shouldn't let it effect another person's enjoyment of a game, or incite the level of bile that review is getting in the comments section. Plus, since the reviewer was upset about the small amount of female characters, the review could have been bumped down to just 9/10. Or even worse, 8.8. It didn't have to be 9.5.

[Morph Bark]

I continue to be absolutely puzzled as to why some people think anything less than a 9/10 is a bad score.

[GungHo]

Game magazines and pro sites curved (inflated) scores to please advertisers for the better part of two decades, and it's skewed perceptions tremendously. And, unfortunately, when you walked away from those pro sites and went to the amateur sites that claimed to "tell it like it is", all editorial control was lost and you ended up with scoring and scoring methodologies that were based on the preferences of one human and had no comparability.

[warty goblin]

I continue to be absolutely puzzled as to why some people think anything less than a 9/10 is a bad score.

I continue to be absolutely puzzled as to why people pay attention to the number at the end in the first place.

[Cristo Meyers]

I continue to be absolutely puzzled as to why people pay attention to the number at the end in the first place.

The opposite would require thought and interpretation of words.

[Maxios]

The opposite would require thought and interpretation of words.

Which is something 90% of the Internet is incapable of.

[warty goblin]

The opposite would require thought and interpretation of words.
True.


Which is something 90% of the Internet is incapable of.
Also true. Although I don't really think 90% of the internet is any better with numbers; it just shows less.

[Tavar]

(Oh and I got that he is saying, and my response is simply that we are all hypocrites about SOMETHING. All of us. Without exception).
True. But, and I guess I need to rei-iterate this because you seem to have missed what I actually said:

HE IS SAYING THAT YOU ARE HYPOCRITICAL ABOUT THIS SPECIFIC TOPIC.

That is not beside the point. That's is, well, the whole point about this discussion. For example, let's look at a statement made recently:

Well, all I can say is that see a huge difference, and that I find it mindbogglnig that others cannot. End of discussion.
You are saying that there's a difference, without any explanation as to what the difference is. This can easily be seen as hypocritical, and more specifically, hypocritical about the topic of discussion. Which should be easy to see, is the whole point.

[BRC]

Game magazines and pro sites curved (inflated) scores to please advertisers for the better part of two decades, and it's skewed perceptions tremendously. And, unfortunately, when you walked away from those pro sites and went to the amateur sites that claimed to "tell it like it is", all editorial control was lost and you ended up with scoring and scoring methodologies that were based on the preferences of one human and had no comparability.

Well consider.

Your standard AAA game is $60 and is expected to occupy you for 8-16 hours (There are many outliers of course) or so. This is a significant investment of time and money for entertainment.

Compared to a Film which may cost $10, and will occupy you for 2 hours. Seeing a bad film is much less of a big deal than buying a bad game. In addition, many gamers already have "Go-to" games, or games they can replay. Therefore a Video Game Consumer is much less likely to buy a game with mediocre reviews. You don't want to pay $60 for ten hours of Not Bad gameplay.

This leads to the 8-9 rating system. anything below an 8 is mediocre or "Okay", so not worth $60 and hours upon hours of playtime. Therefore any game rated less than an 8 is generally going to be a failure, especially when there are so many other games available. Of course this produced a cycle, where any game rated seven or below is now assumed to be terrible, because 8 is the new standard.

Then you get the "Anything less than a 10 is a crime" school of thought, which is basically just rabid fanboyism. Once you've pre-ordederd the game months in advance, watched every trailer, played the ARG, and kissed the poster before bed every night, an indication that your holy grail has a few smudges seems like a personal insult.

it SHOULD be

10: Perfect, Flawless game.
9: Amazing game with a few flaws
8: Very Good Game.
7: Enjoyable, but not especially great
6: Enjoyable with serious flaws.

instead it's
10: Perfect, Flawless game.
9: Very Good game.
8: acceptable Game
7-0: Terrible game do not buy.

[Morph Bark]

I continue to be absolutely puzzled as to why people pay attention to the number at the end in the first place.

Not sure if mocking. :smallconfused:

Do you mean the /10 bit or the score part of a review (which I've mostly seen being placed at the beginning outside of magazines)?


*snip*

Well said. At least a 1-10 system is better than a star system for grading though, as people are more inclined to give a more extreme rating with stars.

Sadly, I don't know any good reviewers that aren't satirical that largely share my tastes and opinions that I could go to for recommendations or to see if I should avoid a game I'm thinking of getting. Too many of them are either easily bought, huge fans of only a single genre or game series and not critical enough of that one, or confuse one part for another. (Graphics and aesthetics is a common one.) Knowing a good reviewer would help in assessing why they give a game such-and-such score, which might make their 7 be an effective 9 amongst the 7s of reviewers that are less critical and more quick to judge without a good assessment of a game's merits and flaws and focus more on one or the other.

[Tavar]

Not sure if mocking. :smallconfused:

Do you mean the /10 bit or the score part of a review (which I've mostly seen being placed at the beginning outside of magazines)?
He's saying that the numerical score as a whole is a waste of time.

[Logic]

10: Perfect, Flawless game.
9: Amazing game with a few flaws
8: Very Good Game.
7: Enjoyable, but not especially great
6: Enjoyable with serious flaws.

instead it's
10: Perfect, Flawless game.
9: Very Good game.
8: acceptable Game
7-0: Terrible game do not buy.

Actually, 7 is usually the score of "For Series Fanboys only."
Otherwise, your rating system seems spot on to how they industry does it.

[Aotrs Commander]

One of the things about Angry Joe I like is he goes out of his way to use the full range of ten and specify that 5 is an average, not bad, average game.

[BRC]

One of the things about Angry Joe I like is he goes out of his way to use the full range of ten and specify that 5 is an average, not bad, average game.

I think that the Games Rating system has some connection the academic "Letter Grade" system, where you are graded not on overall quality, but on a proportion of things you did correct.

From that perspective a Five does not mean "You are acceptable, but not extraordinary", it means "Of all the things you could have done right, you did half of them wrong".

[factotum]

One of the things about Angry Joe I like is he goes out of his way to use the full range of ten and specify that 5 is an average, not bad, average game.

I think a Penny Arcade comic from a few months ago says it perfectly (left-hand panel):

http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2013/02/13

[Avilan the Grey]

I continue to be absolutely puzzled as to why some people think anything less than a 9/10 is a bad score.

Oh it gets better. Most Swedish publications actually use the full scale; but gaming companies, usually aware of the "power creep" of scores, sometimes have bad reactions to it. Such as when Sony contacted a Swedish paper to ask WTF when they gave a game 6 / 10, and the editor had to explain that it's because they actually use the full 10 poin scale (A lousy game will get a 2 or 3, not a 7.5 etc).

Also, regarding females involved in this business... the last 5 years have unfortunately showed that "geeks" are MORE sexist and hateful than "non-geeks" though we have tried to portray ourself as the opposite. The raw, uncontrolled HATRED against women who don't like booth babes, or find that female soldiers should wear more than a bra, etc is staggering.


True. But, and I guess I need to rei-iterate this because you seem to have missed what I actually said:

HE IS SAYING THAT YOU ARE HYPOCRITICAL ABOUT THIS SPECIFIC TOPIC.

That is not beside the point. That's is, well, the whole point about this discussion. For example, let's look at a statement made recently:

You are saying that there's a difference, without any explanation as to what the difference is. This can easily be seen as hypocritical, and more specifically, hypocritical about the topic of discussion. Which should be easy to see, is the whole point.

Uh... DUh? I KNOW what he says. I don't CARE. I don't think I am, but that's beside the point.

Also, as for "not saying what the difference is"... Really? I thinik I have been very very clear what the difference is. That's why I find it baffling that he, and you(?) don't see it.
It's like me holding up two boxes, one red and one blue, and saying "this box is red" and "this box is blue", and then he comes back and say "but why don't you tell me what the difference is between them?"

[Milo v3]

Uh... DUh? I KNOW what he says. I don't CARE. I don't think I am, but that's beside the point.

Also, as for "not saying what the difference is"... Really? I thinik I have been very very clear what the difference is. That's why I find it baffling that he, and you(?) don't see it.
It's like me holding up two boxes, one red and one blue, and saying "this box is red" and "this box is blue", and then he comes back and say "but why don't you tell me what the difference is between them?"

Ok... Perhaps you should actually say the difference?

Because while it might be clear to you. We mere mortals are on the other side of the internet and our telepathy doesn't allow us to figure out what difference your refering to at this distance.

[Tavar]

Uh... DUh? I KNOW what he says. I don't CARE. I don't think I am, but that's beside the point.
.....
.....
.....
.....
Do you understand what "beside the point" means? It would mean that it didn't factor into the discussion at all. Since, if you were paying attention, the discussion is about the differing views, the label is directly relevant, despite your desires to the contrary. The only way they wouldn't matter is if your views on this topic weren't part of the discussion.

Also, as for "not saying what the difference is"... Really? I thinik I have been very very clear what the difference is. That's why I find it baffling that he, and you(?) don't see it.
It's like me holding up two boxes, one red and one blue, and saying "this box is red" and "this box is blue", and then he comes back and say "but why don't you tell me what the difference is between them?"
Actually, it's more like you are looking at two boxes. You're saying one is dark red, and the other is Maroon, and thus they're different. The other person is saying that they're both just shades of red, and thus have some similarities. They're not exactly the same, but, well, are you really saying that violent criminals and violent vigilantes have nothing in common? Because, well, last I checked Murder is a crime in most places....

[Avilan the Grey]

Ok... Perhaps you should actually say the difference?

Because while it might be clear to you. We mere mortals are on the other side of the internet and our telepathy doesn't allow us to figure out what difference your refering to at this distance.

I already did?
Over and over?

But fine:

The characters in this game, and especially Trevor, are professional criminals, that earn their living (and in some cases get their kicks, for the lulz) from violent crimes, murder, and torture.

The characters I find acceptable are also killers, but they are not preying on the innocent, don't go on rampages... Basically they are the typical video game protagonists.

Now, if you STILL can't see the difference, I am sorry, but I cannnot explain it any better. And I will be even more baffled.


Do you understand what "beside the point" means? It would mean that it didn't factor into the discussion at all. Since, if you were paying attention, the discussion is about the differing views, the label is directly relevant, despite your desires to the contrary. The only way they wouldn't matter is if your views on this topic weren't part of the discussion.

Actually, it's more like you are looking at two boxes. You're saying one is dark red, and the other is Maroon, and thus they're different. The other person is saying that they're both just shades of red, and thus have some similarities. They're not exactly the same, but, well, are you really saying that violent criminals and violent vigilantes have nothing in common? Because, well, last I checked Murder is a crime in most places....

Yes I understand what it means. And I still don't find him calling me a hypocrite about this relevant, since to me it's a cop-out.

...As for the boxes, that's the point. I see a GLARING difference in color, and I am genuinely confused as how others do not.

[Milo v3]

I already did?
Over and over?

But fine:

The characters in this game, and especially Trevor, are professional criminals, that earn their living (and in some cases get their kicks, for the lulz) from violent crimes, murder, and torture.

The characters I find acceptable are also killers, but they are not preying on the innocent, don't go on rampages... Basically they are the typical video game protagonists.

Now, if you STILL can't see the difference, I am sorry, but I cannnot explain it any better. And I will be even more baffled.
But that argument has repeatedly been argued against with logical arguments, with no actual reply. I was expecting that your argument would've developed to respond to the other people in the conversation, rather remaining static.

The characters don't really get their living from violent crimes, murder, or torture. Aside from I think two questlines, they get it from heists and buying businesses, though I admit the business that Trevor general does isn't legal and he is psychotic. This psychotic nature actually gets the other protagonists to call him out on it and really don't like how he is needlessly violent, even going to the extent of one of the first bits of the game has Michael tell Trevor that he shouldn't have killed a person even though that person had a gun to Michaels head.

Also, my characters still haven't Ever preyed on the innocent in my game. I have accidently hit into a person in my car when I was getting used to the first person view, but I immediately called the ambulence so I seriously doubt that counts as Preying on the Innocent.

[Avilan the Grey]

But that argument has repeatedly been argued against with logical arguments, with no actual reply. I was expecting that your argument would've developed to respond to the other people in the conversation, rather remaining static.

The characters don't really get their living from violent crimes, murder, or torture. Aside from I think two questlines, they get it from heists and buying businesses, though I admit the business that Trevor general does isn't legal and he is psychotic. This psychotic nature actually gets the other protagonists to call him out on it and really don't like how he is needlessly violent, even going to the extent of one of the first bits of the game has Michael tell Trevor that he shouldn't have killed a person even though that person had a gun to Michaels head.

Also, my characters still haven't Ever preyed on the innocent in my game. I have accidently hit into a person in my car when I was getting used to the first person view, but I immediately called the ambulence so I seriously doubt that counts as Preying on the Innocent.

I don't see any logical arguments that makes sense to me. Seriously. That's why I wrote "end of discussion", because I am apparently unable to get my point across, and I am unable to understand the other side's points. And I mean that seriously. I am absolutely baffled.

Trevor is the main point of concern, of course. And since you cannot avoid playing as him, if you want to play the main story, I will not play this game.
As for your second point... You have not played the main story then, I take it? Since the man Trevor tortures is not only innocent, but knows nothing about what he is tortured for.

[Tebryn]

I don't see any logical arguments that makes sense to me. Seriously. That's why I wrote "end of discussion", because I am apparently unable to get my point across, and I am unable to understand the other side's points. And I mean that seriously. I am absolutely baffled.

The argument against is that it's totally arbitrary. You don't see saying "I'm ok with playing X character but not Y character who does Z action because X does it for a reason that doesn't make me uncomfortable." as arbitrary. And that's the reason we're arguing against you. We get your point of view. We just don't agree with you for various reasons which differ from person to person. I find your reasoning silly because you're claiming an action is evil but then saying that evil is permissible sometimes and not others. I'm for moral gray, I'm just saying...stop using the word evil in these instances because it's a word that carries baggage and doesn't actually convey your nuanced and, in my opinion, understandable mindset.

[Avilan the Grey]

The argument against is that it's totally arbitrary. You don't see saying "I'm ok with playing X character but not Y character who does Z action because X does it for a reason that doesn't make me uncomfortable." as arbitrary. And that's the reason we're arguing against you. We get your point of view. We just don't agree with you for various reasons which differ from person to person. I find your reasoning silly because you're claiming an action is evil but then saying that evil is permissible sometimes and not others. I'm for moral gray, I'm just saying...stop using the word evil in these instances because it's a word that carries baggage and doesn't actually convey your nuanced and, in my opinion, understandable mindset.

I am sorry, but I can't do that; I truly feel that Trevor is Evil.

And I am NOT saying that the same action sometimes is Evil, sometimes is not. Because (with certain exceptions, such as torture) it is not the action in itself that is evil, but the sum of (intent + action). And you are absolutely right; I don't see that as arbitrary, I see it as pretty damn absolute. I don't find, for example, a cop shooting a bank robber equal to the bank robber shooting a hostage.

[Tebryn]

I am sorry, but I can't do that; I truly feel that Trevor is Evil.

And I am NOT saying that the same action sometimes is Evil, sometimes is not. Because (with certain exceptions, such as torture) it is not the action in itself that is evil, but the sum of (intent + action). And you are absolutely right; I don't see that as arbitrary, I see it as pretty damn absolute. I don't find, for example, a cop shooting a bank robber equal to the bank robber shooting a hostage.

Right. And that's the main source of the argument, at least from me. You're saying torture is -always- big E evil. But you're OK with some characters who do it and not with others and you alone make the distinction between them. That's the very definition of arbitrary. Take a look!


Based on individual discretion or judgment; not based on any objective distinction, perhaps even made at random.

It's your individual discretion! You deem torture (an always evil thing according to you) to be permissible based on the reasoning of the character. That's a personal distinction! You may not agree with people who -don't- make that distinction but guess what. That's what makes it -personal-. You're not wrong or bad for having your personal reasons why you'll play one video game character or another. The people who disagree with you are more in their right to find it a silly distinction though. Regardless of whether you can fathom someone not agreeing with you or not. But that's on you, not them. It's totally your problem if you can't understand them and if you don't try to..that's your problem to. How you deal with it is totally up to you though and I won't make a value judgement but it's not going to get you away from discussions and arguments like this when you float your reasoning out as the only right one and everyone else is just utterly unable to be understood.

[Milo v3]

I don't see any logical arguments that makes sense to me. Seriously. That's why I wrote "end of discussion", because I am apparently unable to get my point across, and I am unable to understand the other side's points. And I mean that seriously. I am absolutely baffled.
The logical argument is that you claim that the characters are evil, when only one character is evil.


Trevor is the main point of concern, of course. And since you cannot avoid playing as him, if you want to play the main story, I will not play this game.
As for your second point... You have not played the main story then, I take it? Since the man Trevor tortures is not only innocent, but knows nothing about what he is tortured for.
I have played some of the main story, I'm not up to the torture bit in my game but I've seen it in it's entirety twice and I can just say the guy knows about what he's being tortured for because he does give the correct information in the end.

And Trevor also being made to torture the guy be an amazingly corrupt agent, and as soon as the agent is gone Trevor goes against his orders to kill him and saves him.

I'm not saying he's good, that would be a complete lie. He IS a psychopath. The other characters are disgusted by him being a Psychopath.

[Tylorious]

I have played some of the main story, I'm not up to the torture bit in my game but I've seen it in it's entirety twice and I can just say the guy knows about what he's being tortured for because he does give the correct information in the end.

And Trevor also being made to torture the guy be an amazingly corrupt agent, and as soon as the agent is gone Trevor goes against his orders to kill him and saves him.

I'm not saying he's good, that would be a complete lie. He IS a psychopath. The other characters are disgusted by him being a Psychopath.



I played up until that point and quit immediately after i finished that quest. I was so shocked and saddened by the visuals that I had to quit, probably never to pick it up again. I just believe that there some things we shouldn't see, like human suffering, because it desensitizes us to real life. I won't go indepth about that, that's just how I view it and why I stopped playing this particular game.

[Avilan the Grey]

Right. And that's the main source of the argument, at least from me. You're saying torture is -always- big E evil. But you're OK with some characters who do it and not with others and you alone make the distinction between them. That's the very definition of arbitrary. Take a look!

---

It's your individual discretion!.

Second paraghraph first: You are misquoting; that paragraph was not from me.

And no, I am not. I have explicitly said that I am NOT okay with torture. When someone pointed out that Frank Castle have used torture, I wrote that fine, then forget him in this argument; something that seems impossible, btw, since he is being brough up again and again despite that.

[
The logical argument is that you claim that the characters are evil, when only one character is evil.


I have played some of the main story, I'm not up to the torture bit in my game but I've seen it in it's entirety twice and I can just say the guy knows about what he's being tortured for because he does give the correct information in the end.

I'm not saying he's good, that would be a complete lie. He IS a psychopath. The other characters are disgusted by him being a Psychopath.

1. I have said that Trevor is Evil. I have also said I do not play badguys. The other two are definitely badguys, even if they aren't Evil.

2. Well, all I have seen from reading about the scene is that the guy in question has nothing to do with what he is tortured for.

3. ...And so am I, which is why I don't play the game.


I played up until that point and quit immediately after i finished that quest. I was so shocked and saddened by the visuals that I had to quit, probably never to pick it up again. I just believe that there some things we shouldn't see, like human suffering, because it desensitizes us to real life. I won't go indepth about that, that's just how I view it and why I stopped playing this particular game.

This is exactly why I will not buy or play the game; I knew about this scene beforehand due to all the controversy around it.

[Seerow]

I'm honestly shocked people still spend so much time arguing with Avilan about morality. He has very narrow views on the subject, and has shown no instance of budging on them in any topic where it comes up. Sometimes it really is better to just walk away rather than going all:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

[BRC]

There is a line somewhere from one of the devs of Spec Ops saying "Your character can be no more noble than you gameplay calls for" that I think is relevant, and I think it's why I can stomach playing, say, Saint's Row, but I can't really get into the mindset for GTA.
Note: I have NOT played GTA, but from what I've heard about it Saint's Row is probably worse. There are multiple minigames that are simply "Go around and cause as much damage as possible". Saints Row IV has you inside a computer simulation, so you're not actually hurting anybody, but those same mechanics existed in SR II and III.
However, Saint's Row, or at least the later games, makes no pretense of being in a world governed by reality. The Boss is not written as a real person, they are written as an egomanical adrenaline junky psycopath.
Sorry, "Puckish Rouge".

Even in Saint's Row II they make the action sequences cartoonish enough to provide a disconnect from reality that makes the senselessness palatable.

So yeah, you would be surprised at how context can change things. Look at Nathan Drake, he is by any measure a mass murderer. The opening tutorial of the first game has him killing ten people.

Admittedly they were pirates trying to kill him, but still. I played the full series and I'm surprised there are any mercenaries left alive in the world. Every instance of Drake killing somebody is one where the person would have gladly killed Drake if given the chance. Which only slightly mitigates the fact that Nathan Drake Is A Mass Murderer.

But the context is important. James Bond can kill ten Russian Soldiers and come across as lovable. Walter White kills one drug dealer and turns into a monster. This is because we're not supposed to imagine that James Bond exists, but Walter White is supposed to be only slightly removed from our reality. Going by body count alone, James Bond is more evil than Walter White, but one of them is one of the most popular action heroes in modern media, and the other is considered one of the greatest monster's ever written.

So while The Boss is worse than Trevor could ever be, Trevor is more evil because he's probably closer to what could be.

I don't really have a point here, just musing.

[warty goblin]

The argument against is that it's totally arbitrary. You don't see saying "I'm ok with playing X character but not Y character who does Z action because X does it for a reason that doesn't make me uncomfortable." as arbitrary. And that's the reason we're arguing against you. We get your point of view.

Special 10:00 ACTION NEWS Bulletin!
This just in: Person's subjective opinions about entertainment totally arbitrary. Nerd criticism rocked to its core. Says one startled witness "We had no idea that something like this... I mean even having an opinion without a 5,000 word blog post, it's frankly alarming. It's like something you see on the news, but happening right here." An area mother expressed hope that "the children didn't see something... like that."

An Internet Nerd Standards Enforcement officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, says that this is the worst flagrant disregard for logical argument on a topic that has nothing to do with logic since twenty minutes ago, when an individual known only as xxxReBelSkuLLxxx ignored over ten years of internet bile and thousands of hours of Youtube commentary when he said "I kinda liked Episode 1, and thought Jar Jar was pretty funny, really." Citizens are warned that as of press time, xxxReBelSkuLLxxx is still believed to be at large, and armed with an incorrect opinion.


Up next: Dog considers biting man, but decides to spend all day smelling own ass instead. Also, are you being haunted by the ghost of a small appliance repairman?

[Maxios]

And no, I am not. I have explicitly said that I am NOT okay with torture. When someone pointed out that Frank Castle have used torture, I wrote that fine, then forget him in this argument; something that seems impossible, btw, since he is being brough up again and again despite that.

1. I have said that Trevor is Evil. I have also said I do not play badguys. The other two are definitely badguys, even if they aren't Evil.

2. Well, all I have seen from reading about the scene is that the guy in question has nothing to do with what he is tortured for.

On the "Punisher torturing criminals" thing, he does that all the damn time. There was even a Punisher game where torturing criminals for information was a huge part of gameplay.

Taking Trevor (Something Evil), and Michael (Chaotic Neutral) out of the equation, how is Franklin a bad guy? His side-missions involve him: helping two poor childhood friends with their towing company, saving the life of a jackass extreme-sports guy stuck in a tree, solving a murder, fighting against cartoonishly corrupt corporate executives, and even helping a crazy hunter try to find Bigfoot. Which he sorta does.

The majority of his main-missions also involve him saving the lives of his idiot friends.

[Tebryn]

Second paraghraph first: You are misquoting; that paragraph was not from me.

And no, I am not. I have explicitly said that I am NOT okay with torture. When someone pointed out that Frank Castle have used torture, I wrote that fine, then forget him in this argument; something that seems impossible, btw, since he is being brough up again and again despite that.


The second quote isn't quoting you? It's quoting Merriam Websters? I know it's not from you. :smallconfused: People keep bringing up the character you stated you were ok with who tortures to point out that you're being a hypocrite.


*Snide Strawman Comments*

:smallconfused: Avelin is saying he's not being arbitrary in his decisions which I am saying is absurd because of the above. Thanks for that though.

[Milo v3]

I played up until that point and quit immediately after i finished that quest. I was so shocked and saddened by the visuals that I had to quit, probably never to pick it up again. I just believe that there some things we shouldn't see, like human suffering, because it desensitizes us to real life. I won't go indepth about that, that's just how I view it and why I stopped playing this particular game.
I disagree about the desensitization, but that's fair enough viewpoint which would be very wrong for me to argue about.


1. I have said that Trevor is Evil. I have also said I do not play badguys. The other two are definitely badguys, even if they aren't Evil.
Franklin is a bad guy? How? Even saying Michael is a bad guy is a stretch...


2. Well, all I have seen from reading about the scene is that the guy in question has nothing to do with what he is tortured for.
That is incorrect. Having viewed the scene it is obvious he does have something to do with what he is being tortured for. Because he gives them the information. If he had nothing to do with it, that would've been impossible.


3. ...And so am I, which is why I don't play the game.
That's fair enough, I just disagree with you labelling the other characters as evil and stuff and other people citing player actions as examples of such.


I'm honestly shocked people still spend so much time arguing with Avilan about morality. He has very narrow views on the subject, and has shown no instance of budging on them in any topic where it comes up. Sometimes it really is better to just walk away rather than going all:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
As juvenile as it likely seems, arguments are fun. So why not discuss morality of fictional characters for hours and hours? :smallbiggrin:

[Avilan the Grey]

Special 10:00 ACTION NEWS Bulletin!
This just in: Person's subjective opinions about entertainment totally arbitrary. Nerd criticism rocked to its core. Says one startled witness "We had no idea that something like this... I mean even having an opinion without a 5,000 word blog post, it's frankly alarming. It's like something you see on the news, but happening right here." An area mother expressed hope that "the children didn't see something... like that."

An Internet Nerd Standards Enforcement officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, says that this is the worst flagrant disregard for logical argument on a topic that has nothing to do with logic since twenty minutes ago, when an individual known only as xxxReBelSkuLLxxx ignored over ten years of internet bile and thousands of hours of Youtube commentary when he said "I kinda liked Episode 1, and thought Jar Jar was pretty funny, really." Citizens are warned that as of press time, xxxReBelSkuLLxxx is still believed to be at large, and armed with an incorrect opinion.


Up next: Dog considers biting man, but decides to spend all day smelling own ass instead. Also, are you being haunted by the ghost of a small appliance repairman?

Here. Have all my Internets. :smallbiggrin:


how is Franklin a bad guy?

Well, you are forced to play as the others, so it really doesn't matter. Maybe he isn't.


The second quote isn't quoting you? It's quoting Merriam Websters? I know it's not from you. :smallconfused: People keep bringing up the character you stated you were ok with who tortures to point out that you're being a hypocrite.

:smallconfused: Avelin is saying he's not being arbitrary in his decisions which I am saying is absurd because of the above. Thanks for that though.

I don't undertand what you mean with the first paragraph.

Also, :sigh:

I. Have. Redacted. My. Statement. About. Frank. Castle.
...And yet I am being called a hypcrite for bringing him up. That makes it very hard to take any other argument seriously, since focusing on an argument no longer "in play", trying to bring it up over and over and trying to make me a hypocrite because of it, is rather... strawman-ish.

I stand for what I'm saying; I don't find my moral stand arbitary.

Oh and Mr Goblin is not posting Strawmen. He is poking fun at this entire argument, and that is something completely different.

[GungHo]

Well consider.
I hear what you're saying, but looming over that in the early 90s through mid 00s was when a major publisher got a low score, they would threaten or actually go through with denying review copies to specific sites, go to management to attempt to get writers fired, or "adjust" advertising for a few months. Moreover, good reviewers would get better benefits/toys/interview opportunities etc for the next time around. Maybe I'm a little sensitive to what that kind of thing implies since my industry requires a certain level of ethics, but to an outsider, it seems like there are a lot of avenues for corruption... so I look for content rather than actual scores.

Someone mentioned Angry Joe... I like that guy's reviews. I also like Yahtzee's reviews. They are entertaining. I also liked Old Man Murray, and was quite upset many years ago when they shut down while I was on deployment.

[hamishspence]

Evil in what sense- the D&D sense, or in general?

D&D requirements for "Being Evil-aligned" can vary from setting to setting. In Eberron, it's fairly easy to qualify, and one might expect 3 out of 10 random commoners to be Evil. Older settings may make it harder.

Two examples:


Low Grade Evil Everywhere
In some campaigns, the common population is split roughly evenly among the various alignments - the kindly old grandmother who gives boiled sweets to children is Neutral Good and that charming rake down the pub is Chaotic Neutral. Similarly the thug lurking in the alleyway is Chaotic Evil, while the grasping landlord who throws granny out on the street because she's a copper behind on the rent is Lawful Evil.

In such a campaign up to a third of the population will detect as Evil to the paladin. This low grade Evil is a fact of life, and is not something the paladin can defeat. Certainly he should not draw his greatsword and chop the landlord in twain just because he has a mildly tainted aura. It might be appropriate for the paladin to use Diplomacy (or Intimidation) to steer the landlord toward the path of good but stronger action is not warranted.

In such a campaign detect evil cannot be used to infallibly detect villainy, as many people are a little bit evil. if he casts detect evil on a crowded street, about a third of the population will detect as faintly evil.

Evil As A Choice
A similar campaign set-up posits that most people are some variety of Neutral. The old granny might do good by being kind to people, but this is a far cry from capital-G Good, which implies a level of dedication, fervour and sacrifice which she does not possess. If on the other hand our granny brewed alchemical healing potions into those boiled sweets or took in and sheltered orphans and strays off the street, then she might qualify as truly Good.

Similarly, minor acts of cruelty and malice are not truly Evil on the cosmic scale. Our greedy and grasping landlord might be nasty and mean, but sending the bailiffs round to throw granny out might not qualify as Evil (although if granny is being thrown out into a chill winter or torrential storm, then that is tantamount to murder and would be Evil). In such a campaign, only significant acts of good or evil can tip a character from Neutrality to being truly Good or Evil.

if a paladin in this campaign uses detect evil on a crowded street, he will usually detect nothing, as true evil is rare. Anyone who detects as Evil, even faintly Evil, is probably a criminal, a terrible and wilful sinner, or both. Still, the paladin is not obligated to take action - in this campaign, detecting that someone is Evil is a warning, not a call to arms. The paladin should probably investigate this person and see if they pose a danger to the common folk, but he cannot automatically assume that this particular Evil person deserves to be dealt with immediately.

Are the actions of the characters in the new GTA game consistent with only one of these definitions, or both?

[Tavar]

Yes I understand what it means. And I still don't find him calling me a hypocrite about this relevant, since to me it's a cop-out.
You don't think that someone saying that you don't seem to have consistent views, in a discussion about your views, is relevant?

If that's the case, then what do you think is relevant?

...As for the boxes, that's the point. I see a GLARING difference in color, and I am genuinely confused as how others do not.
Largely, what's the vast difference between a professional criminal, and a violent vigilante? Especially considering that, well, if not professional, violent vigilante's are by definition criminals.



I don't undertand what you mean with the first paragraph.
He's saying that the part you objected to as not a quote from you was, in fact, not intended as a quote from you, but in fact a quote from the dictionary regarding the definition of arbitrary. I'm not sure how this is confusing, it's a direct reply to your own post.


Also, :sigh:

I. Have. Redacted. My. Statement. About. Frank. Castle.
...And yet I am being called a hypcrite for bringing him up. That makes it very hard to take any other argument seriously, since focusing on an argument no longer "in play", trying to bring it up over and over and trying to make me a hypocrite because of it, is rather... strawman-ish.

I stand for what I'm saying; I don't find my moral stand arbitary.
Well, here's the thing: despite redacting it, the initial withdrawals still opened you up to such charges, because your initial steps backwards were along the lines of "well, maybe the character has changed", to which people reply that he really hasn't. And even afterword, the arguments you used to explain your position still apply, and those are the key points that people are targeting when they are saying you are a hypocrite or just entirely arbitrary.


Oh and Mr Goblin is not posting Strawmen. He is poking fun at this entire argument, and that is something completely different.
Poking fun doesn't mean it's not a strawman.

[Tebryn]

Largely, what's the vast difference between a professional criminal, and a violent vigilante? Especially considering that, well, if not professional, violent vigilante's are by definition criminals.

He's answered this, or at least people have stated what he thinks the difference is. One kills because they're helping themselves. The other does it to help the innocent.


He's saying that the part you objected to as not a quote from you was, in fact, not intended as a quote from you, but in fact a quote from the dictionary regarding the definition of arbitrary. I'm not sure how this is confusing, it's a direct reply to your own post.

Ya this. I'm not sure how you got confused on that?


Poking fun doesn't mean it's not a strawman.

Especially when Warty and I agree. I just wish Avilan would.

[Narren]

Largely, what's the vast difference between a professional criminal, and a violent vigilante? Especially considering that, well, if not professional, violent vigilante's are by definition criminals.


Professional criminals victimize others (including innocent people) for personal gain, and violent vigilantes target those who victimize the innocent so that the world is a safer place?

Morally gray or not, I see a vast difference in the two. Sure, you can have a professional criminal that will only target other criminals, or a violent vigilante that doesn't care who gets hurt, but I think more specific examples were being discussed in which this wasn't the case.

[Tavar]

Professional criminals victimize others (including innocent people) for personal gain, and violent vigilantes target those who victimize the innocent so that the world is a safer place?

Morally gray or not, I see a vast difference in the two. Sure, you can have a professional criminal that will only target other criminals, or a violent vigilante that doesn't care who gets hurt, but I think more specific examples were being discussed in which this wasn't the case.

Perhaps, but then there's the fact that he has argued that doing crimes such as making drugs for even non-selfish reasons is bad, because you are doing a crime against others. Which leads to the only possible le conclusion that murderer isn't a crime in his eyes, which I do not think is true.

[Avilan the Grey]

Perhaps, but then there's the fact that he has argued that doing crimes such as making drugs for even non-selfish reasons is bad, because you are doing a crime against others. Which leads to the only possible le conclusion that murderer isn't a crime in his eyes, which I do not think is true.

With all due respect, I have never argued for making, and selling, heavy drugs for non-selfish reasons.

Because that is an oxymoron.

As for murder... yes, it's a crime, a capital offense. The point here though is WHY. If we are going by IRL laws, yes then there is no moral difference, but if we go by game or movie "laws"? Hell of a difference. If I wasn't okay with "murder" I would not be able to play ANY modern games except Candy Crush.

[Seerow]

With all due respect, I have never argued for making, and selling, heavy drugs for non-selfish reasons.

Because that is an oxymoron.

As for murder... yes, it's a crime, a capital offense. The point here though is WHY. If we are going by IRL laws, yes then there is no moral difference, but if we go by game or movie "laws"? Hell of a difference. If I wasn't okay with "murder" I would not be able to play ANY modern games except Candy Crush.

So wait, murder is okay to differentiate between real life and media, and intent matters with it, but drug creation/distribution/use even in media is absolute evil and intent never matters? The double standard makes my head spin.

[Avilan the Grey]

So wait, murder is okay to differentiate between real life and media, and intent matters with it, but drug creation/distribution/use even in media is absolute evil and intent never matters? The double standard makes my head spin.

Too bad for you.

I don't find it stranger to not be okay with playing a badguy but killing badguys is okay, than to be okay to watch say Star Wars despite not being okay with what the Grand Moff is doing.

In fact, I find your perspective far more head-spinning.

[Tavar]

With all due respect, I have never argued for making, and selling, heavy drugs for non-selfish reasons.

Because that is an oxymoron.
As much as doing murder for non-selfish reasons, yes.


As for murder... yes, it's a crime, a capital offense. The point here though is WHY. If we are going by IRL laws, yes then there is no moral difference, but if we go by game or movie "laws"? Hell of a difference. If I wasn't okay with "murder" I would not be able to play ANY modern games except Candy Crush.
And this is the rub: because your statement is that being fictional is a complete pass for some crimes, and not others, with little reasons given.


Too bad for you.

I don't find it stranger to not be okay with playing a badguy but killing badguys is okay, than to be okay to watch say Star Wars despite not being okay with what the Grand Moff is doing.

In fact, I find your perspective far more head-spinning.

Largely? I imagine because the people aren't imagining themselves doing it, the same way I can read a book about, say, WWII or Hitler, without putting myself in Hitler's place.

[warty goblin]

And this is the rub: because your statement is that being fictional is a complete pass for some crimes, and not others, with little reasons given.


I'm confused by the part where this makes any possible difference, is anybody else's business but Avilan's, and why anybody is apparently operating under the strange opinion that they're going to change his mind. Virtual homicide doesn't bother Avilan in some contexts. Virtual drug dealing bothers him in most or all, what of it?

[factotum]

I imagine because the people aren't imagining themselves doing it, the same way I can read a book about, say, WWII or Hitler, without putting myself in Hitler's place.

The critical difference here is that reading a book is just imparting information to you--you're a disinterested third party reading the content. When playing a game, you *are* putting yourself into the mind of the protagonist and doing the things he's doing--it's a little thing called immersion, you may have heard of it? If that protagonist is being forced to continue the game's storyline by doing things you personally find repulsive, then that has to have some sort of effect on you, or else the game is not doing its job properly.

To put it another way: if somebody released a game where you actually *did* play as Hitler, I really don't see it selling well. Yet, judging from your comments, you'd apparently buy that game and play it?

[endoperez]

To put it another way: if somebody released a game where you actually *did* play as Hitler, I really don't see it selling well. Yet, judging from your comments, you'd apparently buy that game and play it?

There are games where you play as the leader of WW2 Germany, making economical, political and military decisions. Does that count?

You can play as Genghis Khan in Civilization games. He lead his army to kill 40 million people. Does that make him worse than Hitler?

There are games where you play as a political tyrant who can wage war against the enemy population. Scifi games are especially bad at this. "Viral bombs? COOL! Now I can get all the factories intact. Pop: 100 M? Genocide? Nah, it doesn't count."

There are games where you can brainwash your citizens to stop them from rebelling against you. For example, the nerve stapling in Alpha Centauri. Does that count?

[factotum]

Well, that all depends. Do those examples you provide all give you a choice of how to play? Or do they force you to do the bad stuff? Because if it's the former, then I for one have no problem with them--just as I would have no problem with the torture mission in GTA5 if you had a choice to not do it. It's the fact you don't GET that choice and are thus forced into doing something you might not want to do which is the main issue here.

[Drascin]

Now, I don't have neither the interest nor the time to waste reading a thread like this, but, on the title question, have you given a thought to Just Cause 2? From what I'm told (this kind of game doesn't really interest me), it is kind of GTA-ish but less focused on being a criminal (and more on blowing a dictatorship the **** up). And the PC version sells for peanuts right now.

[endoperez]

Well, that all depends. Do those examples you provide all give you a choice of how to play? Or do they force you to do the bad stuff?

Then this is also my, and possibly Tavar's, answer to your question. Would I play a game as Hitler? That depends.

[Tavar]

The critical difference here is that reading a book is just imparting information to you--you're a disinterested third party reading the content. When playing a game, you *are* putting yourself into the mind of the protagonist and doing the things he's doing--it's a little thing called immersion, you may have heard of it? If that protagonist is being forced to continue the game's storyline by doing things you personally find repulsive, then that has to have some sort of effect on you, or else the game is not doing its job properly.

To put it another way: if somebody released a game where you actually *did* play as Hitler, I really don't see it selling well. Yet, judging from your comments, you'd apparently buy that game and play it?
And if you read my post, you'd realize that was exactly what I was saying. Alvin is saying there's no difference between watching a movie with a horrible act taking place(even if not from a protagonist, the Example given was Star Wars and the destruction of Alderaan).


I'm confused by the part where this makes any possible difference, is anybody else's business but Avilan's, and why anybody is apparently operating under the strange opinion that they're going to change his mind. Virtual homicide doesn't bother Avilan in some contexts. Virtual drug dealing bothers him in most or all, what of it?

Probably because the title.

[factotum]

And if you read my post, you'd realize that was exactly what I was saying.

I *did* read your post, but on re-reading it, I realise I misinterpreted what you were saying, for which I can only apologise.

[Avilan the Grey]

And if you read my post, you'd realize that was exactly what I was saying. Alvin is saying there's no difference between watching a movie with a horrible act taking place(even if not from a protagonist, the Example given was Star Wars and the destruction of Alderaan).

Probably because the title.

Regarding movies and TV; I don't enjoy badguy protagonists that doesn't get enough of a Karmic backlash at the end. I brought up the Grand Moff more to point out that it isn't weird not to be "okay" with the evil stuff your character does in a video game.

Factorum has a point here though: Games are so much worse if they FORCE you to play through something your personal morals don't agree with. Playing as an historical dictator or madman is different if you do it on a strategic level, compared to actually recreate the historical events; I can play as Vlad Tepez defending my home country against the occupying Turks. I cannot play him sitting and having supper surrounded by men being impaled alive around me, screaming in agony as they slowly die, all played up for me as if it was seen through my own eyes.

[Tavar]

Regarding movies and TV; I don't enjoy badguy protagonists that doesn't get enough of a Karmic backlash at the end. I brought up the Grand Moff more to point out that it isn't weird not to be "okay" with the evil stuff your character does in a video game.
The issue was that your example doesn't really apply toward that argument, and the argument you're attempting to make doesn't apply to what Seerow said in the first place.


Factorum has a point here though: Games are so much worse if they FORCE you to play through something your personal morals don't agree with. Playing as an historical dictator or madman is different if you do it on a strategic level, compared to actually recreate the historical events; I can play as Vlad Tepez defending my home country against the occupying Turks. I cannot play him sitting and having supper surrounded by men being impaled alive around me, screaming in agony as they slowly die, all played up for me as if it was seen through my own eyes.
Which isn't an argument many would disagree with, or at least not see the point to. The main issue is that you seem to make this argument, and then say "but murder/wanton violence is totally exempted from that, and not evil at all". Hence, issues.

[warty goblin]

Which isn't an argument many would disagree with, or at least not see the point to. The main issue is that you seem to make this argument, and then say "but murder/wanton violence is totally exempted from that, and not evil at all". Hence, issues.
Wanton violence is kinda what videogames do. Some of them bother with a bit more justification for murdering everybody you meet who pisses you off in the slightest, but at the end of the day, your average videogame protagonist makes most axe murderers look like pacifists with a lot of training in non-violent conflict resolution.

[Avilan the Grey]

Wanton violence is kinda what videogames do. Some of them bother with a bit more justification for murdering everybody you meet who pisses you off in the slightest, but at the end of the day, your average videogame protagonist makes most axe murderers look like pacifists with a lot of training in non-violent conflict resolution.

Indeed.
As I said, if my morals kicked in every time I killed someone on screen I would not be able to play:

PacMan
Super Mario Brothers
Space Invaders

...For starters. It is all a matter of CONTEXT, I don't get why this is so strange.

[Milo v3]

Regarding movies and TV; I don't enjoy badguy protagonists that doesn't get enough of a Karmic backlash at the end.

May I ask why this doesn't apply to games?

[Tavar]

Wanton violence is kinda what videogames do. Some of them bother with a bit more justification for murdering everybody you meet who pisses you off in the slightest, but at the end of the day, your average videogame protagonist makes most axe murderers look like pacifists with a lot of training in non-violent conflict resolution.
Interesting, as if this was Avilan's position it would be in direct contradiction to his stated position.


Indeed.
As I said, if my morals kicked in every time I killed someone on screen I would not be able to play:

PacMan
Super Mario Brothers
Space Invaders

...For starters. It is all a matter of CONTEXT, I don't get why this is so strange.
Because you seem to deny that context is a factor except for Murder. Which, in my mind, is kinda hilarious. It's like saying Money is absolutely evil, unless you have 1 trillion dollars.

[warty goblin]

Interesting, as if this was Avilan's position it would be in direct contradiction to his stated position.

As I've been suggesting for some time now, so what? People's tastes tend to be rather arbitrary; it's foolish to pretend otherwise. Which was the actual point of my so-called 'Strawman.' I wasn't agreeing with the people who are claiming Avilan is being inconsistent like it actually means something; I was poking fun at the supposition that logic has the first thing to do with taste, and getting invested in its absence from somebody else's preferred entertainment.


Because you seem to deny that context is a factor except for Murder. Which, in my mind, is kinda hilarious. It's like saying Money is absolutely evil, unless you have 1 trillion dollars.
Unless I'm really missing something, I don't think that's what Avilan's been saying.

Culturally we have a very long tradition of morally acceptable or even laudable use of violence in combat or similar situations. That tradition isn't there for yanking out political prisoners' teeth - even if you think torture is an acceptable means of gathering intelligence, there's no denying this view is contentious both now and historically. Same thing for drug dealing, running over old women in the street, etc. One can argue they are justified, or that it's only a game, and so forth, but the cultural inertia isn't there for most other forms of deviance from civil society.

[factotum]

I'd have to agree with warty_goblin there, and it baffles me that there are apparently people who see no difference between shooting someone who's actively trying to kill you (which is the case in most games) and torturing a helpless prisoner.

[Avilan the Grey]

May I ask why this doesn't apply to games?

It does. Why do you ask?


Because you seem to deny that context is a factor except for Murder. Which, in my mind, is kinda hilarious. It's like saying Money is absolutely evil, unless you have 1 trillion dollars.

See Warty's and Factorum's response. Your arguments just doesn't make sense.

[Milo v3]

It does. Why do you ask?

IMO, The characters in GTA get a lot of Karmic Blacklash throughout the story. That's all.

[JustSomeGuy]

RE karmic backlash:

Some unforseen compulsion forces you, for no obvious reason, to drive your car over the highest hill/mountain, then careen down the other side - miles from civilisation - crashing into all the flora and fauna, and leaving you upside down in a river bed. at which point your 'possesor' flies off, leaving you cold, wet, tired and facing a very long walk, and a probable death at the teeth of coyotes or mountain lions. This happens repeatedly.

[Milo v3]

RE karmic backlash:

Some unforseen compulsion forces you, for no obvious reason, to drive your car over the highest hill/mountain, then careen down the other side - miles from civilisation - crashing into all the flora and fauna, and leaving you upside down in a river bed. at which point your 'possesor' flies off, leaving you cold, wet, tired and facing a very long walk, and a probable death at the teeth of coyotes or mountain lions. This happens repeatedly.

That was third time I have ever laughed out loud from this forum. Thank you :smalltongue:

[Tylorious]

RE karmic backlash:

Some unforseen compulsion forces you, for no obvious reason, to drive your car over the highest hill/mountain, then careen down the other side - miles from civilisation - crashing into all the flora and fauna, and leaving you upside down in a river bed. at which point your 'possesor' flies off, leaving you cold, wet, tired and facing a very long walk, and a probable death at the teeth of coyotes or mountain lions. This happens repeatedly.

I was with my friend who just got done binging on saints row, and he was driving. We were headed to a resaurant and he started turning when he shouldn't. When I realized he was following another car, I informed him of what he was doing when he snapped out of his game coma and said he needed that car for a chop shop mission in the game. We then went and ate baconators.

[Tavar]

As I've been suggesting for some time now, so what? People's tastes tend to be rather arbitrary; it's foolish to pretend otherwise. Which was the actual point of my so-called 'Strawman.' I wasn't agreeing with the people who are claiming Avilan is being inconsistent like it actually means something; I was poking fun at the supposition that logic has the first thing to do with taste, and getting invested in its absence from somebody else's preferred entertainment.
Largely because he has repeatedly claimed that he is not being arbitrary at all.

Unless I'm really missing something, I don't think that's what Avilan's been saying.
He's saying murder is great, but other, lesser crimes are unforgivable. So, yes, that is exactly what he is saying.

Culturally we have a very long tradition of morally acceptable or even laudable use of violence in combat or similar situations. That tradition isn't there for yanking out political prisoners' teeth - even if you think torture is an acceptable means of gathering intelligence, there's no denying this view is contentious both now and historically. Same thing for drug dealing, running over old women in the street, etc. One can argue they are justified, or that it's only a game, and so forth, but the cultural inertia isn't there for most other forms of deviance from civil society.
I don't know that I completely agree with some of the examples you gave, and I'm not sure I agree with the central premise, especially since it doesn't seem to hold true with stuff like Breaking Bad or other non-Hero protagonist stuff.



See Warty's and Factorum's response. Your arguments just doesn't make sense.
Perhaps you should read Warty's post again. It directly contradicts some of the things you seem to have been saying.

I'd have to agree with warty_goblin there, and it baffles me that there are apparently people who see no difference between shooting someone who's actively trying to kill you (which is the case in most games) and torturing a helpless prisoner.
I'd be baffled too.

[Avilan the Grey]

Perhaps you should read Warty's post again. It directly contradicts some of the things you seem to have been saying.


That is not my point; my point is that YOUR argument just doesn't make sense. your LOGIC doesn't make sense. Warty and I have always argued about things, but I can follow his thoguht process, I understand where he is comming from.

[JustSomeGuy]

I was with my friend who just got done binging on saints row, and he was driving. We were headed to a resaurant and he started turning when he shouldn't. When I realized he was following another car, I informed him of what he was doing when he snapped out of his game coma and said he needed that car for a chop shop mission in the game. We then went and ate baconators.

Took me a couple of reads to get what you meant; mate, that's hilarious!

[Vic 2.0]

...Seriously?

I feel cheated in an odd way since I will never be able to play this game that looks so awesome, since I just cannot fathom myself playing a game with these kind of characters... :smalleek::smallfrown:

Yes, it's not out on PC yet, but anyway. I keep looking at the pictures of it going "that's awesome" but then I see the actual scripted events, and hell no. First of all I hate games with switching protagonists, I want a single person that I can play as "me". But the main problem is simply that well... If you have seen my rant against Breaking Bad then you already know my issue.

But I still feel cheated...

I hear you. They really messed up 5 in many ways, but one of them is by taking away bits of the player's freedom. I don't know if it's been mentioned here yet or not, but there's a mandatory mission where you have to torture an innocent person by doing things like slowly pulling their teeth out with pliers and water-boarding them to progress the story. You can't skip the mission, or choose not to torture them; you HAVE to. What makes this disturbing is that you're getting up close and personal with your victim, dragging it out so you can savor the moment of causing them pain, rather than running them over or shooting them a few times and being done with it. What makes combat and driving into people satisfying in video games is the excitement of the impact, not just the raw thought of hurting someone.

Between this, the nudity, and the overly explicit voiceovers you can hear should you happen to hire a prostitute because you always found the experience "funny" in past GTAs, convinces me that Rockstar is trying too hard to prove they are the "baddest". Shock value is just about the only sort of "value" they can put into their games "correctly" anymore.

Makes me (afraid to) wonder what's next. Rape mini-games? Kidnapping kids? Combination of both? Ugh, I'm through with GTA unless they come to their senses (which doesn't seem likely). I agree with whoever suggested Sleeping Dogs. It's much better, both ethically and in terms of gameplay. The graphics aren't as good as GTA 5's, but they're not bad either. And the map isn't as huge as GTA 5's, but it is satisfactorily big. If you want an all-around better game, SD would be it.

[Maxios]

I hear you. They really messed up 5 in many ways, but one of them is by taking away bits of the player's freedom. I don't know if it's been mentioned here yet or not, but there's a mandatory mission where you have to torture an innocent person by doing things like slowly pulling their teeth out with pliers and water-boarding them to progress the story. You can't skip the mission, or choose not to torture them; you HAVE to. What makes this disturbing is that you're getting up close and personal with your victim, dragging it out so you can savor the moment of causing them pain, rather than running them over or shooting them a few times and being done with it. What makes combat and driving into people satisfying in video games is the excitement of the impact, not just the raw thought of hurting someone.

Between this, the nudity, and the overly explicit voiceovers you can hear should you happen to hire a prostitute because you always found the experience "funny" in past GTAs, convinces me that Rockstar is trying too hard to prove they are the "baddest". Shock value is just about the only sort of "value" they can put into their games "correctly" anymore.

Makes me (afraid to) wonder what's next. Rape mini-games? Kidnapping kids? Combination of both? Ugh, I'm through with GTA unless they come to their senses (which doesn't seem likely). I agree with whoever suggested Sleeping Dogs. It's much better, both ethically and in terms of gameplay. The graphics aren't as good as GTA 5's, but they're not bad either. And the map isn't as huge as GTA 5's, but it is satisfactorily big. If you want an all-around better game, SD would be it.
The torture scene was discussed thoroughly in the earlier pages of the thread. The scene wasn't intended to glorify torture, it was meant to show off just how disgusting it us. Hell, Trevor even gives a speech soon afterwards about why torture doesn't even work. Also, you don't drag the process out.

There's been nudity in other entries in the series, as well as other Rockstar games (Red Dead Redemption, Max Payne 3, GTA IV...), and there's been "overly explicit" voiceovers in many other games (including those not done by R*.) Also note that every other game made by Rockstar in recent years does have value. Red Dead Redemption was extremely well-written, had a beautiful world to explore, and was perfect at capturing the feel of a Western. Max Payne 3 had incredible acting, and the best combat out of any game I've ever played.

I'm also a little confused as to how nudity constitutes as shock value.

Rockstar has said in the past that they'll never have children in GTA. Or rape, for that matter.

[Vic 2.0]

The torture scene was discussed thoroughly in the earlier pages of the thread. The scene wasn't intended to glorify torture, it was meant to show off just how disgusting it us. Hell, Trevor even gives a speech soon afterwards about why torture doesn't even work. Also, you don't drag the process out.

I'm also a little confused as to how nudity constitutes as shock value.

Rockstar has said in the past that they'll never have children in GTA. Or rape, for that matter.

Maybe "shock value" wasn't the correct term for the nudity in these games, but I certainly don't see any practical purpose for it other than purposes entirely unrelated to the concept of video games (aka getting off). Further, and I know you're just going to say "That's why they put warning labels on the case!" but, we all know kids are playing these games by the hundreds if not thousands everyday. Used to be you could guess at what was in a game and not be surprised. Those days are gone. And neither "sexual content" nor "nudity" on the label really drives the point home that there's an interactive stripper mini-game in GTA 5. Same for the explicit voiceovers. Way overboard, not needed for anything but a hard-on (and a hard-on isn't needed to play a video game, lol).

I guess we'll just have to see if Rockstar keeps their word on the no children and no rape thing. But it does beg the question,

If the torture scene was only put in to show how disgusting it is, what's the difference between that and kidnapping and rape? I mean, if the game's just turning all documentary on us and we can excuse the content for this alleged purpose, can't you see them eventually saying "Rape? Not that big a deal. After all, it's just a video game, and you've been killing people in cold blood by the thousands"? I guess I'm just asking out of curiosity, where's the line in your view?

ETA: Though it seems hypocritical, I am fine with violence in video games but not nudity and explicit sexual content for moral reasons, but I've actually thought about it. In my view, one reason violence in video games can just be shrugged off is that kids know from an incredibly early age what the harm in real violence is. They can see it and comprehend its ramifications immediately. It makes people sad or angry, whereas sex apparently makes everyone very happy (and there's no mention of "later on"). When it comes to sex, the consequences are not so fully understood until adulthood (or until someone gets pregnant or an STD in their teens) and the line between being sexually responsible and irresponsible couldn't be more blurred ("Protection" = real, true protection in the minds of the youth, and there's again no mention of emotional/psychological harms). Long story short, sex and violence are on two entirely different levels of our conscious and subconscious. It's why most parents who are fine with watching their kid shoot down a hundred people in GTA 5 wouldn't be so comfortable watching them feel up the strippers! Ever wonder why? Who knows, maybe you guys have a better understanding of it than I do.

[Maxios]

From another perspective: explicit sexual activity earns a game (at least, in 'Murica) an Adults Only rating. That's pretty much a death sentence for a game because almost every large retailer refuses to sell it. Explicit sexual activity in a game usually causes a massive amount of controversy (for instance, the Hot Coffee scandal surrounding a dummied out feature in San Andreas).
Explicit rape (which is where I draw the line) would result in the game being banned in numerous other countries, nearly every large retailer in the USA refusing to sell it, and a MASSIVE amount of controversy. Even if, against all odds, R* wanted to include rape in their games they couldn't without losing a massive amount of money.

See, it's the opposite in my case. If I had a young child, I'd prefer (though not want) them to see a naked person than people getting slaughtered by the droves. I know my parents felt the same way.

[Rodin]

I don't have problems with either nudity/sex or violence in videogames as long as it is tastefully done.

The trouble is, "tasteful" and "GTA" do not belong in the same sentence. The game is about as subtle as Elan in an Invisibility Sphere.

[Vic 2.0]

From another perspective: explicit sexual activity earns a game (at least, in 'Murica) an Adults Only rating. That's pretty much a death sentence for a game because almost every large retailer refuses to sell it. Explicit sexual activity in a game usually causes a massive amount of controversy (for instance, the Hot Coffee scandal surrounding a dummied out feature in San Andreas).
Explicit rape (which is where I draw the line) would result in the game being banned in numerous other countries, nearly every large retailer in the USA refusing to sell it, and a MASSIVE amount of controversy. Even if, against all odds, R* wanted to include rape in their games they couldn't without losing a massive amount of money.

See, it's the opposite in my case. If I had a young child, I'd prefer (though not want) them to see a naked person than people getting slaughtered by the droves. I know my parents felt the same way.

So explicit rape being where you draw the line means that if they added the ability to rape women but didn't show sexual organs and penetration, you wouldn't consider that overboard? I'm not trying to trap you, lol, just curious. I actually saw someone say on the GTA forums that they wanted the ability to rape thrown into the next GTA game, though they didn't specify whether they meant explicit or what.

When my son's old enough to play video games, I'm pretty sure I'll rather him see fictional violence than nudity (be it fictional or real), because again, I don't think the youth (including some teenagers and even a few adults!) are capable of understanding and appreciating the dangers of sex the same way they can understand and appreciate the dangers of violence. And I would feel much more uncomfortable watching him interact with the sexual parts of GTA 5 than the violent parts (with the torture scene being about tied with the sex/nudity), though I'll admit I can't explain why that is.

ETA: Maybe it has something to do with the notion (whether correct or incorrect) that sexual desire is inevitable in practically every human being and will become a regular thing, whereas the desire to strike or shoot someone is (again, arguably) neither inevitable nor a regular desire.

[Maxios]

So explicit rape being where you draw the line means that if they added the ability to rape women but didn't show sexual organs and penetration, you wouldn't consider that overboard? I'm not trying to trap you, lol, just curious. I actually saw someone say on the GTA forums that they wanted the ability to rape thrown into the next GTA game, though they didn't specify whether they meant explicit or what.

When my son's old enough to play video games, I'm pretty sure I'll rather him see fictional violence than nudity (be it fictional or real), because again, I don't think the youth (including some teenagers and even a few adults!) are capable of understanding and appreciating the dangers of sex the same way they can understand and appreciate the dangers of violence. And I would feel much more uncomfortable watching him interact with the sexual parts of GTA 5 than the violent parts (with the torture scene being about tied with the sex/nudity), though I'll admit I can't explain why that is.

ETA: Maybe it has something to do with the notion (whether correct or incorrect) that sexual desire is inevitable in practically every human being and will become a regular thing, whereas the desire to strike or shoot someone is (again, arguably) neither inevitable nor a regular desire.

No, any on-screen rape whatsoever. It's one thing if the bad guy is said to have commited such a heinous act in the past, but actually showing it (no matter how detailed)? Completely disgusting. I'm guessing you mean gtaforums.com? I wouldn't believe a word anyone there says, that site consists almost entirely of trolls. Also, nah, I know you're not trapping me. I'm kinda enjoying this conversation.

Since when is nudity completely associated with sex? I mean, by that logic, a huge amount of classical art could be considered smut.

[warty goblin]

When my son's old enough to play video games, I'm pretty sure I'll rather him see fictional violence than nudity (be it fictional or real), because again, I don't think the youth (including some teenagers and even a few adults!) are capable of understanding and appreciating the dangers of sex the same way they can understand and appreciate the dangers of violence. And I would feel much more uncomfortable watching him interact with the sexual parts of GTA 5 than the violent parts (with the torture scene being about tied with the sex/nudity), though I'll admit I can't explain why that is.

How does a person learn to appreciate the dangers of something if they are never exposed to it? Or, because teenager + internet = porn, never taught about how to handle that exposure?

To be clear, I'm not advocating GTA as sex-ed, but any decent sex-ed needs to cover how to process sexual content like GTA. Which being uncomfortable or embarrassed by doesn't help anybody do well. It was pretty much my parents' approach, which only worked for me because I was far more shy than libidinous*, and later in life was willing enough to put in the effort to learn about sex - and lucky enough find the materials to do so. Had I been wired differently, such an approach would have worked horribly.


*Not, by the way, a combination I would wish on anybody. It might make being a teenager somewhat safer, but it sure doesn't make it any happier, and turns out to be spectacularly unhelpful down the road.

[Vic 2.0]

No, any on-screen rape whatsoever. It's one thing if the bad guy is said to have commited such a heinous act in the past, but actually showing it (no matter how detailed)? Completely disgusting. I'm guessing you mean gtaforums.com? I wouldn't believe a word anyone there says, that site consists almost entirely of trolls. Also, nah, I know you're not trapping me. I'm kinda enjoying this conversation.

Agreed, on all points. Basically, someone on that site (which I am a member of solely because of GTAs 3-LCS) said they would like to see the ability for the playable character to rape be introduced in a GTA game. They admitted it was sick, but said something to the effect of "It's just a game".


Since when is nudity completely associated with sex? I mean, by that logic, a huge amount of classical art could be considered smut.

I was still talking about everything as it pertains to GTA, which as Rodin said, is not a game we can ever expect nudity to be done tastefully in. Indeed, it isn't the nudity itself, but the message that comes along with it.


How does a person learn to appreciate the dangers of something if they are never exposed to it? Or, because teenager + internet = porn, never taught about how to handle that exposure?

To be clear, I'm not advocating GTA as sex-ed, but any decent sex-ed needs to cover how to process sexual content like GTA. Which being uncomfortable or embarrassed by doesn't help anybody do well. It was pretty much my parents' approach, which only worked for me because I was far more shy than libidinous*, and later in life was willing enough to put in the effort to learn about sex - and lucky enough find the materials to do so. Had I been wired differently, such an approach would have worked horribly.

*Not, by the way, a combination I would wish on anybody. It might make being a teenager somewhat safer, but it sure doesn't make it any happier, and turns out to be spectacularly unhelpful down the road.

I think my reason for not wanting to see my son play a game in which he gropes a stripper is more about the notion that sex is (still) a largely private matter. And I view this aspect of GTA 5 as a stone's throw away from pornography. I wouldn't want to be in the same room while he was watching pornography, even assuming he wasn't, you know, doing anything else! So I'd feel about as uncomfortable with him playing a game like GTA 5 in the same room.

Even in private though, I wouldn't want him playing a game with that kind of nudity or sexual content in it. I wish I could find a better way to say it. Ultimately, I think the notions below are a special recipe for disaster:
1. There is far less consensus in this society as to where the line is between "right" and "wrong" concerning sex, as there is concerning violence.
2. Sexual consequences are less obvious and subject to more denial than those of violence. "Protection" is used as if it's foolproof, even by those who have been told it isn't, and emotional/psychological harms in a sexual misadventure are practically unspoken and unheard of, no matter how real.
4. Violence in and of itself is mostly illegal. Sex in and of itself is mostly not.

That's in addition to the oddity that is nudity/sex in video games to begin with. I just don't see how they have any place in an activity such as this, if not to serve as an alternative to pornography (And if that's the case, I do hope Rockstar was thinking about people who want pornography but are afraid of being caught with it, and not kids who are too young to buy pornography but have generally uninformed parents who will inevitably buy this game for them.)

But then, I wouldn't want my son playing that game regardless, because I also think it just plain sucks! Want my son to have higher standards. :smallsmile:

[Avilan the Grey]

Even in private though, I wouldn't want him playing a game with that kind of nudity or sexual content in it. I wish I could find a better way to say it. Ultimately, I think the notions below are a special recipe for disaster:
1. There is far less consensus in this society as to where the line is between "right" and "wrong" concerning sex, as there is concerning violence.
2. Sexual consequences are less obvious and subject to more denial than those of violence. "Protection" is used as if it's foolproof, even by those who have been told it isn't, and emotional/psychological harms in a sexual misadventure are practically unspoken and unheard of, no matter how real.
4. Violence in and of itself is mostly illegal. Sex in and of itself is mostly not.

That's in addition to the oddity that is nudity/sex in video games to begin with. I just don't see how they have any place in an activity such as this

I just find the idea that sex is "worse" than violence mindboggling.

1. I don't see how this is relevant.
2. The bigger the reason for a thorough exposure and education. Also, I don't know how they manufacture contraceptives in America, but most of them manufactured elsewhere are basically foolproof IF YOU USE THEM. Especially the "condom broke" thing seems to be mostl an American problem (judging from media and the rumor mill online) and the only thing I can say is buy European made condoms then, since they seem to be of much better quality.
(Side track, I know, but the argument that condoms are unsafe is primarely an american thing).
4. Don't you think this is exactly as it should be? I would refuse to live somewhere were it was the other way around. Besides, why is this relevant?

[MLai]

I just find the idea that sex is "worse" than violence mindboggling.
I think what he's saying is that he's equating sex in GTA with the player avatar doing drugs in a video game. He's pretty sure his son isn't going to pick up a gun and go shoot up his school just because he played a game, but he is more worried about the insidious glorification of reckless sex and illegal drug use that you find in popular media, such as "edgy" games and music videos etc.

One is a felony that a teenager knows well enough not to do, and has no temptation to do anyways. The other 2 things can be dangerous temptations that a teenager can be drawn to, if he got all his impressions of them out of a damn Rockstar game.

[Avilan the Grey]

I think what he's saying is that he's equating sex in GTA with the player avatar doing drugs in a video game. He's pretty sure his son isn't going to pick up a gun and go shoot up his school just because he played a game, but he is more worried about the insidious glorification of reckless sex and illegal drug use that you find in popular media, such as "edgy" games and music videos etc.

One is a felony that a teenager knows well enough not to do, and has no temptation to do anyways. The other 2 things can be dangerous temptations that a teenager can be drawn to, if he got all his impressions of them out of a damn Rockstar game.

Oh I know exactly what he is saying. Still boggled.

[Vic 2.0]

Without the line between right and wrong being easy to see, it's easy to step over it. And the fact that the law has practically nothing to say about your sexual behavior (which I agree is the way it should be) only serves as one less deterrent for risky sexual behavior, that might not even be viewed as risky in the first place.

At any rate, I think more of us will agree that it's senseless than agree that it's wrong (because who wants to be "that guy" anyway). Just what purpose is it serving? Realism? "They have strip clubs with naked women because the real world has it"? Because after they made it so you can flip your car back onto its wheels by moving the analog stick, I can't buy that one.

Or perhaps a critique on the quality of this production is in order? Lol, you know, just to lighten this conversation a bit. Just as they do with most of the activities they throw into their GTA games, Rockstar has chosen to make their pornographic activities mediocre as well (You can find better with better graphics online, lol).

So yeah, no point. :smallcool:

[warty goblin]

Since when is nudity completely associated with sex? I mean, by that logic, a huge amount of classical art could be considered smut.
Who's to say it isn't? It's a strange notion in this country that the instant something becomes sexual it is both entirely sexual and diminished for being so.



I think my reason for not wanting to see my son play a game in which he gropes a stripper is more about the notion that sex is (still) a largely private matter. And I view this aspect of GTA 5 as a stone's throw away from pornography. I wouldn't want to be in the same room while he was watching pornography, even assuming he wasn't, you know, doing anything else! So I'd feel about as uncomfortable with him playing a game like GTA 5 in the same room.

So, um, don't watch? The standard of 'must be comfortable doing this in the same room as my parents' isn't really a particularly useful one.


Even in private though, I wouldn't want him playing a game with that kind of nudity or sexual content in it. I wish I could find a better way to say it. Ultimately, I think the notions below are a special recipe for disaster:
1. There is far less consensus in this society as to where the line is between "right" and "wrong" concerning sex, as there is concerning violence.
2. Sexual consequences are less obvious and subject to more denial than those of violence. "Protection" is used as if it's foolproof, even by those who have been told it isn't, and emotional/psychological harms in a sexual misadventure are practically unspoken and unheard of, no matter how real.
4. Violence in and of itself is mostly illegal. Sex in and of itself is mostly not.
1) Sex is a diverse thing, and different people want different things sexually. Of course there isn't consensus. That means however that a person has to figure out for themselves what sex works for them and what doesn't. Which requires them to be exposed to sexuality in some capacity or other.

2) Most things in life come with less obvious risks than bullet holes. Again, this means a person needs more education and exposure, not less. If a person has no knowledge of some sexual practice, how are they supposed to judge whether it will be emotionally/psychologically harmful for them if somebody asks them to participate? I know for instance that I would almost certainly not be OK with participating in somebody's rape fantasy, and I only know this because I've thought that through.

As for the failures of protection; people die in car accidents frequently. Most folks still get in their cars to go to work in the morning. Life is an inherently risky undertaking, and actually living it with enough freedom to make it worthwhile even more so.

4) And you're saying what, that it should be? I really do not understand the point of this comment.


That's in addition to the oddity that is nudity/sex in video games to begin with. I just don't see how they have any place in an activity such as this, if not to serve as an alternative to pornography (And if that's the case, I do hope Rockstar was thinking about people who want pornography but are afraid of being caught with it, and not kids who are too young to buy pornography but have generally uninformed parents who will inevitably buy this game for them.)

I've got zero issue with a game being hot. I don't even think it necessarily diminishes it in other aspects. Hotness is part of life, and if games are the art that the internet keeps informing me that they are, surely they can depict actual life?

[Vic 2.0]

So, um, don't watch? The standard of 'must be comfortable doing this in the same room as my parents' isn't really a particularly useful one.

I wasn't talking about what the kid would be comfortable playing with his parents in the room; I said I as a father wouldn't be comfortable watching my son play a game in which he's feeling up strippers. And not watching would hardly make the reasons it would be uncomfortable disappear, so yeah, that's a pretty pointless suggestion in my book.


1) Sex is a diverse thing, and different people want different things sexually. Of course there isn't consensus. That means however that a person has to figure out for themselves what sex works for them and what doesn't. Which requires them to be exposed to sexuality in some capacity or other.

Are we talking about specific sexual practices, or general sexual behavior that will either mean taking more or avoiding unnecessary risks? I never played a game with nudity and sex in it when I was a kid. Yet somehow, I knew just what to do when a real world scenario came along... That's because it's natural; you don't have to be taught how to have sex nor how to figure out what you like/dislike in the sexual realm. You just do it (pun intended).


As for the failures of protection; people die in car accidents frequently. Most folks still get in their cars to go to work in the morning. Life is an inherently risky undertaking, and actually living it with enough freedom to make it worthwhile even more so.

"Making it worthwhile" is purely subjective. And we all must weigh the harms/risks of harm against the benefits of anything we do for ourselves. In my view, a moment of pleasure (let's assume we are talking about a one night stand or something similar) is not worth even a tiny chance of a life-threatening STD or a pregnancy that stands to make a big change in someone's life one way or another. Things that serve a more practical purpose, such as driving to get from A to B, make more sense. And that's my right to view it this way, and certainly my right to encourage that mentality in my son.


4) And you're saying what, that it should be? I really do not understand the point of this comment.

It's been explained already, same as the fact that I'm not advocating that the government gets (more) involved in our sex lives.


I've got zero issue with a game being hot. I don't even think it necessarily diminishes it in other aspects. Hotness is part of life, and if games are the art that the internet keeps informing me that they are, surely they can depict actual life?

"Hotness", huh? Well that's one way to understate the controversy. By the same token, I suppose we could've replied to the OP with "If you have a problem with putting a little excitement in video games..."

If you look at the sexual content in GTA 5 as "art", all the more power to ya. It is quite the subjective judgment call as well. But then, even art can be judged from a moral standpoint; it's no free pass. We just discussed the idea of putting things like explicit rape in video games, for example. Who's to say that would not be art? Now, who's to say the answer to that question would even be important?

[warty goblin]

I wasn't talking about what the kid would be comfortable playing with his parents in the room; I said I as a father wouldn't be comfortable watching my son play a game in which he's feeling up strippers. And not watching would hardly make the reasons it would be uncomfortable disappear, so yeah, that's a pretty pointless suggestion in my book.

So a kid is supposed to only ever do things their parents are comfortable watching them do? Speaking as somebody who ran their parents on a need to know basis since the age of fourteen or so, I don't think that a good or healthy idea.


Are we talking about specific sexual practices, or general sexual behavior that will either mean taking more or avoiding unnecessary risks? I never played a game with nudity and sex in it when I was a kid. Yet somehow, I knew just what to do when a real world scenario came along... That's because it's natural; you don't have to be taught how to have sex nor how to figure out what you like/dislike in the sexual realm. You just do it (pun intended).
Really, I'd figure a person is well served by having a decent grounding in both, insofar as there is such a thing as general sexual behavior. I'm not generally of the view that all knowledge is automatically a good thing, but this is a case where both horse sense and the statistics strongly suggest that knowing more about sex decreases risk taking - both physical and emotional.


"Making it worthwhile" is purely subjective. And we all must weigh the harms/risks of harm against the benefits of anything we do for ourselves. In my view, a moment of pleasure (let's assume we are talking about a one night stand or something similar) is not worth even a tiny chance of a life-threatening STD or a pregnancy that stands to make a big change in someone's life one way or another. Things that serve a more practical purpose, such as driving to get from A to B, make more sense. And that's my right to view it this way, and certainly my right to encourage that mentality in my son.
Sure it's subjective. Sex is one of those things that the great majority of people actually want and/or need in some capacity to be happy. As you point out, we're kinda wired that way.


It's been explained already, same as the fact that I'm not advocating that the government gets (more) involved in our sex lives.




"Hotness", huh? Well that's one way to understate the controversy. By the same token, I suppose we could've replied to the OP with "If you have a problem with putting a little excitement in video games..."
I have a problem with being made virtually complicit with violations of human rights and grotesque abuses of power. I don't have a problem with complicency in erotic material since sex, even seedy, grimy sex, isn't any of those things. Sexual violence is, but that's a different kettle of fish.


If you look at the sexual content in GTA 5 as "art", all the more power to ya. It is quite the subjective judgment call as well. But then, even art can be judged from a moral standpoint; it's no free pass. We just discussed the idea of putting things like explicit rape in video games, for example. Who's to say that would not be art? Now, who's to say the answer to that question would even be important?
I don't actually look at anything as art. I find it a generally meaningless term, and to usually be a triumph of pretension over substance. When it comes to videogames it also comes along with a massive inferiority complex, which really just makes it all the more worthless.

However I don't see containing sexual content as an automatic signifier that there's nothing else a person can find worthwhile in something. Even if they find the sexual content hot. All those Renaissance nudes are frankly banging. That doesn't diminish the technical and design mastery that went into their creation, or any of the other feelings they may stir in a person. I see contradiction in looking at Botteceli's Birth of Venus as all those things, and still going 'yep, I'd hit that.'

Nor, because I'm not generally keen on policing other people's sexual tastes, am I going to get up in arms about rather more grotty sexual content in a videogame. I don't care if somebody's turned on by it. I don't care if somebody only plays the game because they're turned on by it. If somebody finds it strongly not to their taste and doesn't want to play the game because of it, that's entirely their call. No sexual content on the Earth will be to everybody's taste; if the standard is that nobody can find it distasteful, then there's no sex in anything ever. And then a lot of people lose.

[Vic 2.0]

I hear ya. And I see where you're coming from, with the exception of maybe this:


So a kid is supposed to only ever do things their parents are comfortable watching them do? Speaking as somebody who ran their parents on a need to know basis since the age of fourteen or so, I don't think that a good or healthy idea.

...Just how many things are you imagining a parent would be uncomfortable watching their kid do... that are perfectly ok? Indeed, my entire point was that I feel it's wrong to let a kid see and interact with this stuff (even when it's all "just pixels") because for whatever reason I just couldn't be comfortable witnessing it happen. I won't pretend to know any facts that are on my side; it's just one of those parental intuition type things.

[Avilan the Grey]

...Just how many things are you imagining a parent would be uncomfortable watching their kid do... that are perfectly ok? Indeed, my entire point was that I feel it's wrong to let a kid see and interact with this stuff (even when it's all "just pixels") because for whatever reason I just couldn't be comfortable witnessing it happen. I won't pretend to know any facts that are on my side; it's just one of those parental intuition typ things.

I can understand that. I really do. And believe me.
But I still see no reason to think badly of sexual content in video games, as long as you follow the age marking on the box. Seriously, the biggest reason you don't remember sexual content in video games is because in most games there wasn't room for it. On an 8 bit (or older!) machine... you tended to ONLY shoot and jump, because the machine couldn't handle anything more.

However here's a fun fact for you: Eventually you WILL catch him in bed with someone. Or at least in the middle of a heavy-duty make-out session. It's virtually guaranteed. At what age (his) do you think you will be able to handle that?

[warty goblin]

...Just how many things are you imagining a parent would be uncomfortable watching their kid do... that are perfectly ok? Indeed, my entire point was that I feel it's wrong to let a kid see and interact with this stuff (even when it's all "just pixels") because for whatever reason I just couldn't be comfortable witnessing it happen. I won't pretend to know any facts that are on my side; it's just one of those parental intuition type things.
No, I see your point, and probably overstated mine. Parents do have a right and a duty to be involved and concerned in what their offspring are doing. On the other hand as a child grows up, they I think can legitimately keep things private, and in some cases I suspect doing so benefits all parties involved.

For instance I'm pretty sure my parents would be extremely uncomfortable being in the same room as me while I played a videogame - pretty much any videogame. I know I'd be uncomfortable playing in the same room as them. It's been this way for a very long time, back to when I was a teenager. So I don't play games around them, and it works out well for everybody. I doubt very much however that Sacred turned me into a deeply warped person, even though I snuck it into the house behind my parents' backs when I was fourteen or fifteen.

[Vic 2.0]

I can understand that. I really do. And believe me.
But I still see no reason to think badly of sexual content in video games, as long as you follow the age marking on the box. Seriously, the biggest reason you don't remember sexual content in video games is because in most games there wasn't room for it. On an 8 bit (or older!) machine... you tended to ONLY shoot and jump, because the machine couldn't handle anything more.

However here's a fun fact for you: Eventually you WILL catch him in bed with someone. Or at least in the middle of a heavy-duty make-out session. It's virtually guaranteed. At what age (his) do you think you will be able to handle that?

I will never want to witness him doing something I don't think he should do. If I see it, I'll handle it by correcting it, with the method for doing so depending on many factors.

There actually was nudity in some of the games that were out when I was a kid, though a lot of it was hidden. But back then, people knew "Yeah, they put that in there cuz they're perverts". Now, it's "Oh they just put that in there because it's, ummm, funny... Excuse me, I have to use the bathroom for a sex- uh, SEC!" :P

Warty, Avilan, I really must say...

This is the first time I've discussed GTA 5 on the internet without having to dodge expletives. It's a real treat; glad I found your website.

[MLai]

As an aside, I do not forgive my parents preventing me from watching Natural Born Killers after I rented it from Blockbusters and took it home. I was 18. :smallmad:

I'm a (hobby) writer. I'm an artist. I can choose my own sources of literary information/inspiration, thank you very much.

I don't even want to watch it now, despite still having not seen it. The time period where I could have been inspired by it into writing/drawing something gloriously cynical and grimdark is long past, and I mourn what could have been. :smallfrown: