GTA V

[Merusk]

The Escapist's review has doused any embers of desire I might have had to play this game; "The three men you take control of throughout the game aren't even anti-heroes. They're just scumbags."

So it's every GTA game?

Yeah, really.  I'm going to go with less "these guys are worse than the first 4 games" and more "it's 12 years since GTA3 and I've become an adult with a family and a social conscience."

[rk47]

It says Theft on the damn box.
What is so heroic or non-scumbag about stealing cars?

[Mrbloodworth]

I'm torn about getting this on console. The online part will be great to play with friends, but most of mine are PC equipped, not console ( We do have them, bot we don't all have the same platform ). I Suppose there is still no word on a PC version?

[Sjofn]

Not sure what you're getting at here. They should get a pass on it because it was always bad in that way?

No, but if a reviewer is only just now realizing it then he clearly spent the last decade in a coma or in North Korea. GTA's authors had always a mysoginistic streak but I guess it's OK as long as it's about kiling hookers for money or something. To put it another way criticizing the umpteenth installment in a series for a tendency that is ingrained in the series and that the gaming press as a whole tends to ignore or even glorify is like being grand master of the blinding obvious.

It's also pretty hipocritical coming from a sector of the press that has no problem whatsoever with objectifying and margilazing women in general

The reviewer was a woman, and she mentions it more as an aside than anything, almost as a post script to her "This game is really awesome," theme. And it really seemed more, to me, like she was saying, "And yeah, if you were hoping they grew up some on that front, like some other games have, they haven't. So if you don't want to deal with that, consider yourself warned, because it's pretty bad." The horror.

There's also nothing wrong with reviewers going, "OK, so like. This is getting kind of tiresome, dudes." Gotta start sometime!

[Cyrrex]

It just seems a little strange to call out the misogyny specificially.  It would be like putting in your review summary's negative column "Prodigious amounts of vehicle theft - this is really getting old, Rockstar".  Because duh.  Everything in these games is excessive.

Some of the reviews are better balanced, and calling all of this stuff out as tiresome.  But to pick any one thing and repeat it while ignoring all the others is just odd.

[Rasix]

She gave it a 9/10 out and it was one of the more glowing reviews I've ever seen Carolyn Petit give.  She also called out the inconsistent character actions and plot weakness.  Awww, that crap is always in GTA5, better not mention it. Or better yet, put it on the box as a feature.  

Seriously, she loved the game.  I'm shocked they even had her review it (I would have guessed they'd have Van Ord do it and dreaded the possibility of Tom McShea) and somewhat surprised she liked it this much.  She's been reviewing art house indie crap all summer.

[jakonovski]

Well fuck, I was going to avoid getting this at launch, but instead I picked it up on my way to work.

[Sjofn]

It just seems a little strange to call out the misogyny specificially.  It would be like putting in your review summary's negative column "Prodigious amounts of vehicle theft - this is really getting old, Rockstar".  Because duh.  Everything in these games is excessive.

Some of the reviews are better balanced, and calling all of this stuff out as tiresome.  But to pick any one thing and repeat it while ignoring all the others is just odd.

Aside from that not being the only negative (as Rasix mentioned), I see it more like if someone wrote a review of the latest version of Blood Bowl and mentioned the crap UI. Every version of Blood Bowl has had a crap UI, it's pretty much expected to have a crap UI, but it's still worth mentioning even if it had been glossed over before because it's still a crap UI. And people reading the review, who might be hoping that hey, maybe this time the UI is only sort of crap instead of total crap, might appreciate knowing that no, the UI? Still total crap.

[Yegolev]

You guys need to take off the fucking berets.  It's Grand Theft Auto.

[Paelos]

All I care about is the mechanics, and if the game suffers from shoot shoot shoot and then shoot some more.

If not, I'll get it when they put it on PC.

[Rasix]

It's got the snap aiming, so, shooting is unlikely to be too much of a problem.  Sniping might be an issue.  But, I'll probably be waiting for PC as well. 

[Mrbloodworth]

Saints row is Trolling GTAV, by putting out a DLC named "GATV". Its trended on Twitter and such and confused a great many people. Its also free, for today only.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSX7niJVlNQ&feature=youtu.be

[Paelos]

Knife launcher is pretty funny.

[shiznitz]

She gave it a 9/10 out and it was one of the more glowing reviews I've ever seen Carolyn Petit give.  She also called out the inconsistent character actions and plot weakness.  Awww, that crap is always in GTA5, better not mention it. Or better yet, put it on the box as a feature.  

Seriously, she loved the game.  I'm shocked they even had her review it (I would have guessed they'd have Van Ord do it and dreaded the possibility of Tom McShea) and somewhat surprised she liked it this much.  She's been reviewing art house indie crap all summer.

I always wait for Tom Chick's review before I buy anything.

[Sky]

You guys need to take off the fucking berets.  It's Grand Theft Auto.

[Simond]

You guys need to take off the fucking berets.  It's Grand Theft Auto.

Yeah, no. If fucking Saints Row, with its dildo bats , stripper gang outfits, and "puckish rogue" PC, is more progressive and had more nuanced & sympathetic characters than GTA then Rockstar has fucked up.

Again.

They cannot have it both ways. Either they're making serious games for serious gamers, in which case this broad streak of misogyny running through the GTA series has to fucking stop (amongst other things); or they're making comedic knockabouts, in which case they have to stop fucking pretending they're making serious, cinematic games and roll with the craziness.

[Ingmar]

Mark it on your calendar; I'm in full agreement with Simond for the first time ever.

[Nonentity]

I picked up an early copy last night from a little mom and pop place that didn't give a fuck about street dates.

It's pretty fun, I played a few hours. I'm more enamored with the Los Angeles-ish recreation of the city than I am the actual game at this point, I think. It'll take some time for me to form an opinion on it. The driving is way, way better than 4, though. It's not quite the arcadey fun it is in SR3, but it has weight to it and it feels right.

[Yegolev]

I don't care what Rockstar's intentions are, I'm only concerned with the final product.  Did they agonize over anything, plan out characters, etc?  I don't fucking care because I'm going to be driving around town shooting people, and if that's not fun then it's ALL SHIT.

Typing more words is not taking off a beret.

[Mrbloodworth]

It is slightly odd there has not been a female lead in this series. But I suspect that has more to do with those that typically buy this series.

I mean, after all, one of the hallmarks of the series is betting up the hooker and getting your money back.

[jakonovski]

Stayed at work after hours to try GTAV on a 20 foot projector screen. Pretty awesome, but the new driving model is driving me nuts.

[Rasix]

Typing more words is not taking off a beret.

I don't see any berets here.  We're discussing a game and it's reception thus far.  Unwad.

You'll be able to shoot and run over people.  That's a given.  There might be more to discuss.

[Sky]

They cannot have it both ways.

Sure they can.

[Rishathra]

I've always enjoyed the stories and the characters in GTA, and look forward to these new guys, scumbags or no.  Misogyny has always been pretty prevalent in these games, but I see it as the genre having a lot of misogynistic tropes and archetypes and not as a particular problem Rockstar has.

Misogynistic characters=GTA.
Misogynistic writers=Dahl from Riddick.

[Yegolev]

Typing more words is not taking off a beret.

I don't see any berets here.  We're discussing a game and it's reception thus far.  Unwad.

You'll be able to shoot and run over people.  That's a given.  There might be more to discuss.

no u

Seriously though, I'll have it soon enough and I'll see if it's good, as will everyone else who cares.  I don't know why we're discussing misogyny, nuanced characters, and the other minor elements as if this is a Coppola movie.  Now Bloodworth has even started musing about a female lead in GTA.

I do have a two-part answer, though:
1. No one would wear clothing
2. Too many people were angry they had to play a black guy in San Andreas

[Velorath]

You guys need to take off the fucking berets.  It's Grand Theft Auto.

Yeah, no. If fucking Saints Row, with its dildo bats , stripper gang outfits, and "puckish rogue" PC, is more progressive and had more nuanced & sympathetic characters than GTA then Rockstar has fucked up.

Again.

They cannot have it both ways. Either they're making serious games for serious gamers, in which case this broad streak of misogyny running through the GTA series has to fucking stop (amongst other things); or they're making comedic knockabouts, in which case they have to stop fucking pretending they're making serious, cinematic games and roll with the craziness.

They sold 25 million copies of the last GTA game and even respected reviewers tend to give their games good review scores. I'm sure they don't give a fraction of a shit that you think they fucked up or what kind of game you think they should be making. I've got plenty of complaints about the GTA games but I'm not going to pretend I've got the vision they need to follow for the series.

[Simond]

Ad populum? Really?

Disappointing.

[Sjofn]

Typing more words is not taking off a beret.

I don't see any berets here.  We're discussing a game and it's reception thus far.  Unwad.

You'll be able to shoot and run over people.  That's a given.  There might be more to discuss.

no u

Seriously though, I'll have it soon enough and I'll see if it's good, as will everyone else who cares.  I don't know why we're discussing misogyny, nuanced characters, and the other minor elements as if this is a Coppola movie.  Now Bloodworth has even started musing about a female lead in GTA.

I do have a two-part answer, though:
1. No one would wear clothing
2. Too many people were angry they had to play a black guy in San Andreas

We're not discussing it like it's a Coppola movie, we're discussing it like it's a game that might have some shit in it that people might not like. I know it's really easy to go "lol whatever" when you don't have to make the decision time after fucking time if you think a game is fun enough that you can ignore the fact it obviously hates you for what you are, but it IS something that is a factor for some gamers (not necessarily just woman gamers, either!). And the worse the misogyny is, the more Robot Jesus the rest of the game has to be to make up for it.

And the review lady said yes, it is in fact Robot Jesus enough. That is helpful to know, and whining about berets doesn't change that, nor change the fact that the woman-hating is unnecessary, nor change that it is completely laughable to get upset because a reviewer dared to point it out in an otherwise glowing review.

[Velorath]

Ad populum? Really?

Disappointing.

I'm saying there's a world of difference between "I don't like this aspect of the game" and "Rockstar has fucked up/They cannot have it both ways". The former is an opinion, the latter is hyperbole that is proven wrong by just about any metric you can use to measure GTA's success.

[Ingmar]

Escapist:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/10598-Grand-Theft-Auto-5-Review-People-Suck

In GTA V, you play as a terrible person. Well, three terrible people really, the game's major gameplay innovation from its predecessors being that you can play as three different protagonists. Driving through Los Santos and the rest of Blaine County - a representation of Los Angeles and the surrounding California countryside - is still the highlight of Grand Theft Auto V, and it does make you feel like you are really part of the criminal underworld of a morally bankrupt city. But it's only worth playing if you are ok with being the bad guy. No, a really bad guy.

Now, you may say, that's the hallmark of the crime genre Grand Theft Auto spawned, at least in videogames. But some of the events and missions of Grand Theft Auto V feel more malicious and, well, evil, than the comparatively light-hearted violence of most games, the recent Saints Row 4 being a perfect example. What's missing in GTA V's story is a sense that the characters have been painted into a corner by various machinations beyond their control, like Niko Bellic of GTA IV, or must commit their crimes to mete out justice, as Tommy Vercetti does in Vice City. The three main characters of GTAV do terrible things merely to get paid, and deserve no sympathy. There's no drive in them even to be the best at what they do, the last American value we afford criminals, but rather they commit these crimes with no lifeline thrown to the audience to pull us along in supporting them. It is the difference between The Godfather Part 1 and Part 2, between Inglorious Basterds and Triumph of the Will, and between Just Cause 2 and JFK Reloaded. In the former examples, the audience can get behind the anti-heroes depicted for whatever reason and condone their admittedly awful actions, but in the latter group, the subject matter or the protagonist's morals are skewed too far from the norm to be comfortably witnessed.

/beret on

Pretty much encapsulates my problem with the series, and I'll definitely be skipping this until maybe the $5 Steam sale days down the road.

EDIT: Whoops, Stormwaltz already posted this review. Derp.

[Megrim]

Sooooo... the bad guys aren't romanticized enough per the typical American/Hollywood-ean treatment of "real life" and are instead depicted as they tend to be in reality; petty, vindictive, malicious and spiteful.

How is any of this bad again? I mean, if one is going to criticize GTA for being crass (hookers, etc) that's one thing, arguably true, but saying that the game is bad because it cuts a little too close to the bone is weak as.


" ... the protagonist's morals are skewed too far from the norm to be comfortably witnessed."


Time to take a trip outside the ivory tower methinks.

[Ingmar]

Sooooo... the bad guys aren't romanticized enough per the typical American/Hollywood-ean treatment of "real life" and are instead depicted as they tend to be in reality; petty, vindictive, malicious and spiteful.

How is any of this bad again? I mean, if one is going to criticize GTA for being crass (hookers, etc) that's one thing, arguably true, but saying that the game is bad because it cuts a little too close to the bone is weak as.


" ... the protagonist's morals are skewed too far from the norm to be comfortably witnessed."


Time to take a trip outside the ivory tower methinks.

Because they're not the bad guys, they're you. I can understand the desire to tell a story about bad people, but surely it is not surprising that there are people who don't have the desire to act it out themselves.

EDIT: Also the reviews we've been talking about here range from 3.5/5 to 9/10. None of them are calling the game bad in an overall sense.

[rk47]

Time to take a trip outside the ivory tower methinks.

Some just don't want to go outside their comfort zone.
Can't be helped.
When you're forced to do the 'good action' in game, nobody complains.
But if you're forced to do something 'cruel', people have problem.
I guess it's the 'heroic' expectations these days for gamers.

[Rendakor]

Because they're not the bad guys, they're you. I can understand the desire to tell a story about bad people, but surely it is not surprising that there are people who don't have the desire to act it out themselves.

EDIT: Also the reviews we've been talking about here range from 3.5/5 to 9/10. None of them are calling the game bad in an overall sense.

Except people have been acting it out themselves the whole time, in GTA, SR, JC, etc. except because the protagonist had some single redeeming quality, they were able to empathize with a psychotic criminal. By removing that, you make people realize that what they're doing is incredibly evil; that might make some people uncomfortable but to me that sounds like a better game.

[Margalis]

GTA stories have always been awful schlock about awful characters. "I'm just a hard-working immigrant trying to chase the American dream, that's why I just ran over 50 people on my way to the gym!"  The players and characters commit crimes for no reason that makes any sense. Niko's story was retarded, I find it hard to believe that this is any more retarded. And GTA is not satire either, over the top is not satire.

I don't see anything wrong with mentioning the misogyny but mentioning it then giving the game a great review is laughable in an age when reviewers are trashing games for similar reasons. Apparently misogyny is only a problem for games with small marketing budgets - I'm not sure what kind of message it sends when people freak the fuck out about misogyny in games destined to sell 50k copies then let it slide in games destined to sell millions. I have zero respect for people only willing to pick on games when they know there will be no publisher blow back. If the game is so offensive give it a fucking 8 (GASP!!!) or else don't bother mentioning it. Mentioning it then having it not factor into the review in any real way is basically condoning it.