Grand Theft Auto Grieving Thread - Yep, I've been drinkin' again...

[Meth Dick]

It almost certainly is as gang members like Charles point it out. This isn't to say that RDR2 didn't drop the ball when it came to handling it because you still have idiots going around saying is Arthur is a good person despite being a mass murderer who only repented once he knew he was gonna die.

Ironically, those same people don't give the same leniency to John even though he by far fits the qualifications better, at least in the first game.

Charles was written to be a noble savage/half nigger, of course he was going to be "le voice of reason". They wrote the white people dumb and ignorant just to make the non white characters sound enlightened. Another reason I fear GTA VI. It's already set in Florida. The "dumb cracker" and the "enlightened woke nigger" shit will be off the charts, and not in a cool way. It'll probably be really fucking annoying and preachy.

 

[Bunny Tracks]

Charles was written to be a noble savage/half nigger, of course he was going to be "le voice of reason". They wrote the white people dumb and ignorant just to make the non white characters sound enlightened.

I mean, there's white people in the gang like Hosea, Sadie, and I think John too who also point it out, but yeah.

Real talk, even as someone who really likes Charles, I think his inclusion in the gang is just weird. I know he wasn't supposed to be the chill reasonable guy originally, and that change is the result of his VA's suggestion, but they should've done something else with his character once they decided on that new direction.

 

[Meth Dick]

I mean, there's white people in the gang like Hosea, Sadie, and I think John too who also point it out, but yeah.

Real talk, even as someone who really likes Charles, I think his inclusion in the gang is just weird. I know he wasn't supposed to be the chill reasonable guy originally, and that change is the result of his VA's suggestion, but they should've done something else with his character once they decided on that new direction.

Hosea was the smart one, so of course he gets killed.
Sadie's a woman, so goes with R*'s new business model
John, well they can't really kill John in a prequel but they made up for it by making him pretty much an idiot not to mention that extremely gay ending when Arthur gives John his hat.
Charles is a good character, and hearing that it was his VA's idea for him to be "that guy" isn't surprising at all.
You know what Indian that was smart and really fucking cool? Chavez Y Chavez in Young Guns. They should have based Charles's character off him.

 

[Bunny Tracks]

Charles is a good character, and hearing that it was his VA's idea for him to be "that guy" isn't surprising at all.

It's a bit more complicated than that. The change actually happened during what sounds like early mid-production.

Basically, Charles was originally supposed to just be a dumb brute, but his VA thought that was strange because Charles owned a book, and could actually read (something that was very rare for a black person at the time), and would do that instead of getting drunk, or taking it out on other people when he was upset, so he asked to redo a scene again, but have Charles be calmer, and the devs really liked it, and changed the character because of it.

For those curious, this is the story his VA actually gave.

Spoiler

Edit: Hey there - I'm Noshir - the actor who did the performance capture for Charles Smith! (Sorry, didn't realize I don't have flair on this sub!)

Great question! So... I haven't played the game, but the fact that this is a question means that a scene I shot might not be in the game at all. Obviously, this is just my head-canon - R* may have left out the scene for their own reasons. It's actually my favorite scene from the entire game, because I'm pretty sure it's the moment that the team decided to change Charles' trajectory as a character. When I joined the gang, Charles was described as a brute. He was the quiet, mean enforcer of the gang. I guess previous scenes had been shot with other actors playing Charles where he was involved in torture scenes and the like. So anyway, here we go...

I think the very first scene I shot for RDR2 was the one where Micah says some ignorant racist shit to Charles in camp, and Charles tosses him like a frisbee - the infamous "Eat That!" moment. =) Only, it was Bill at the time, played by the lovely Steve Palmer. So after that moment happens, there was a follow up scene that we shot - it was one of my first times acting with Roger. Arthur comes up to Charles, who's sitting in his tent, reading a book.

Scene as written:

Arthur: "Charles, you okay?"

*Charles throws the book in anger.*

Charles: "No, I'm not okay"

*Charles storms off.*

We did it a couple times, and then I asked the team if I could have one more crack at it. I've talked about this on interviews or IG lives, but I'll talk it through here in case folks don't know. And apologies if you've heard this before!

So... we're a band of outlaws, constantly raiding, constantly on the run. When you live like that, how you pack is really important. You only keep the things that are key to your survival, or have real importance. Anyone who's had to ruck over mountains or any serious distance knows that the size and weight of your kit makes a huge difference.

Given all that, it really struck me that Charles had a book. It meant that:

1. Charles could read - a big deal in these times, and especially given that Charles would have less access to educational opportunities than white folks. (this led to me asking a lot of questions about his relationship with the church, because it was a common, terrible practice for Native American children to be "re-educated" in Christian schools designed to essentially force them to abandon their culture. It was a barbaric, evil practice.)
2. In a time of emotional turmoil, Charles didn't turn to a bottle or go beat a bunch of people to death - he took solace in a book. That shows a level of self-control and mindfulness that seemed really discordant with the description of Charles that I had been given.
3. To carry a book among his personal belongings meant that the book must have had immense personal value...

So we shot the scene again, and this time I asked Roger if I could have a moment with him. We just stood there for a moment... because it has to mean something that this guy goes out of his way to check on me. He's my friend. And then we did the scene. And when Arthur asks if I'm ok, I went to throw the book, and then stopped myself... realizing what I was doing. I brought the book in close, and more sad than angry, said, "No... no, I'm not okay," and quietly walked away. They called 'cut,' and there was some discussions among the team, and I won't pretend to know what that was all about, but from there on out, my scenes often involved Charles giving Arthur counsel... being that friend he could turn to when times were hard. And I'm grateful for that.

Sorry for the long-winded answer, but I hope you found it interesting. Outlaws for life.

TL;DR: Yes, I think Charles can read. And more-so, is an avid reader.

 

[Meth Dick]

Charles be calmer, and the devs really liked it, and changed the character because of it.

Huh. Putting in to that kind of perspective really makes me think a little different. Though I do wish if they were going to have an Indian influence, that it was greater.
I will say I loved the mission where Arthur and Charles find the men that were needlessly killing Bison. I've played the story all the way through multiple times but I never let them live. I would have let the slave owner live before them
You sold me, but perhaps if they did more with his Indian background, I think a game featuring Charles would be cool, since some people have been talking about wanting a Red Dead game where Charles is the protagonist. But, R* retconned John and Abigail, so they can also retcon Charles.
I'd rather have a Charles lead game than a Sadie lead game. If you can turn me onto Sadie, please do, she's a good character, but ultimately, she's a Mary Sue.
Or maybe I'm just being a dick about it, idk.

 

[Bunny Tracks]

Though I do wish if they were going to have an Indian influence, that it was greater.

Me too. From what we know, there was supposed to be, but R* cut it for unknown reasons.

Just to clarify, there's a massive fuckton of cut Native American content which is why places like Fort Riggs feel unfinished. It's because they are.

I will say I loved the mission where Arthur and Charles find the men that were needlessly killing Bison. I've played the story all the way through multiple times but I never let them live. I would have let the slave owner live before them

I love it, too. Especially when you do right after the camp encounter where you have Arthur admit to killing animals for fun.

Funnily enough, there's people that actually get mad at Charles for killing the poacher even though he had every right too, especially when the guy was actually gonna kill him first if you look closely.

I'd rather have a Charles lead game than a Sadie lead game. If you can turn me onto Sadie, please do, she's a good character, but ultimately, she's a Mary Sue.

I wrote a giant essay for this, but then I realized it'd be a lot easier to just say Sadie's character becomes a lot more understandable if you remember that everything that happened to her also happened during a time where there were no safety nets for these situations, nor adequate mental health treatments, or rights for women.

She literally lost everything all at once in extremely traumatic event made even worse for the standards of the time, and that's why she goes batshit insane. If it helps, think of her as an angrier cowboy version of Casca from Berserk, but minus the demon baby.

Don't get me wrong. The game failed completely at showing that properly, but once you take a step back, and look at the big picture, you start to see how it's not Sadie's character that's the problem, it's the game's execution of it.

But yeah, I agree. I'd prefer a Charles game too, even if I don't think he really needs redemption. Having a game where Charles becomes an honest working man with a family would be pretty nice, especially after all the depressing shit that's happened in the series.

 

[Meth Dick]

I love it, too. Especially when you do right after the camp encounter where you have Arthur admit to killing animals for fun.

I don't think I ever really killed animals for fun in RDR2 (maybe boars). in RDR1 I actually stopped playing for a bit because of the fucking wolves. I maxed out my inventory on wolves at one point. Meaning I had 999 Wolf Pelts and Wolf Meats because they spawned them in fucking packs. You'd get a pack of 6, and by the time you finished skinning the last wolf, even with the horse glitch, there'd be another pack descending upon you. It got really fucking annoying actually.

I wrote a giant essay for this, but then I realized it'd be a lot easier to just say Sadie's character becomes a lot more understandable if you remember that everything that happened to her also happened during a time where there were no safety nets for these situations, nor adequate mental health treatments, or rights for women.

I agree but Sadie felt rushed.
"We are a team!"
"Oh Jake died!"
"I'm sad"
"I'm MAD!"
"Fuck you Pierson I'm ONE OF THE BOYS NOW!"
In the span of a week.
She's like some pooners self insert. If they gave her more time it wouldn't be as jarring

She literally lost everything all at once in extremely traumatic event made even worse for the standards of the time, and that's why she goes batshit insane. If it helps, think of her as an angrier cowboy version of Casca from Berserk, but minus the demon baby.

I'm not privy to anime

Don't get me wrong. The game failed completely at showing that properly, but once you take a step back, and look at the big picture, you start to see how it's not Sadie's character that's the problem, it's the game's execution of it.

Agreed. They could have made her awesome, but it feels like R* was more interested in making a girlboss™ character than an actual interesting one. They had the groundwork set up, but the execution was lacking.

 

[Breadquanda.]

John, well they can't really kill John in a prequel but they made up for it by making him pretty much an idiot

Right. I don't know why, but I didn't particularly like John. As much as I enjoyed the first RDR (Redemption, obviously, not Revolver although I played and loved that too), I really resented how the fact RDR2 was a prequel railroaded it into becoming the complete depression fest it was post-chapter 3. I know, I'm just being annoying and wanting a happy ending, and I know it was also somewhat destined by the time period. It just annoyed me. I've always thought about making a fan mod where they all end up sticking together and go on fun little adventures instead of falling apart and dying; I think that would be nice.

I will say I loved the mission where

I liked that mission, but it was ridiculous to represent Native Americans in that way; the way they hunted buffalo is possibly the most disgusting, inhumane and wasteful form of hunting that has ever existed. Just another absurd inaccuracy, like how they included the KKK despite the game being set in one of the only periods post-Civil War in which they did not exist. Not to mention how they are the only people in the entire game you gain honour for killing, despite not being portrayed as doing anything but having a meeting.

I sound like I hate the game, but to be clear, I do not. I absolutely loved it and found it to be a thoroughly engrossing and beautiful experience, hence why I would devote so much time to attempting to mod it if anyone ever did anything like that.

Spoiler: About the slave-catcher

I always really wished I could have saved that poor man. I wasn't even particularly right-wing when I played it, hence why I probably gave the game more slack and appreciated it for the good parts, but that poor man was a person with a job. The game treats him like he wasn't just an employee of the slave-owners and when he expresses his sorrow for doing it, you aren't even allowed to comfort him: you just laugh at him and call him worthless whilst he cries on the floor. The black pimp rapist gangster guy whom you eventually kill for abusing Abigail (or something), and who gives you missions in Red Dead Online gets more sympathy and forgiveness than that man. The game is full of gangsters, strike-breaking mercenary Pinkertons, guns-for-hire, corruption and sex slavery, but a man enforcing fugitive slave laws is the true devil.

Thankfully, they did treat the Confederate veteran with a fair amount of sympathy and basically showed him as equivalent to the Union veteran, from what I remember.

There was that Suffragette too, but I guess we can't expect them to depict their acts of terrorism, since it wasn't all they did, and she is just a passing character. Did they do that in the US? I know they did in the UK.

 

[Bunny Tracks]

I don't think I ever really killed animals for fun in RDR2 (maybe boars).

To be fair, RDR2 kinda discourages it because of its mechanics.

agree but Sadie felt rushed.

Oh, she is. That's her biggest problem. I was just pointing out how when you look at the true context of things, her being crazy makes perfect sense.

I'm not privy to anime

Long story short, Casca was raped to the point of insanity.

Agreed. They could have made her awesome, but it feels like R* was more interested in making a girlboss™ character than an actual interesting one. They had the groundwork set up, but the execution was lacking.

I think it's that, and that they ran out of time. Actually, I think that applies for a lot of the things in the game in general.

the only people in the entire game you gain honour for killing

Minor nitpick, but this isn't true. You also get it for killing the slave-catcher.

I always really wished I could have saved that poor man. I wasn't even particularly right-wing when I played it, hence why I probably gave the game more slack and appreciated it for the good parts, but that poor man was a person with a job. The game treats him like he wasn't just an employee of the slave-owners and when he expresses his sorrow for doing it, you aren't even allowed to comfort him: you just laugh at him and call him worthless whilst he cries on the floor. The black pimp rapist gangster guy who you eventually kill, and who gives you missions in Red Dead Online gets more sympathy and forgiveness than that man.

Of course we don't get to comfort, or forgive him. Why should we? He's not remorseful for what he did, and he never apologizes for it. He's just sad he's not a bigshot anymore, and because his life is now ruined just like how he ruined the lives of others.

If he actually apologized for what he did, and realized that what he had done was morally wrong, even if it was legal at the time, it'd be different. But as it stands, he doesn't deserve our sympathy, or forgiveness.

 

[Meth Dick]

really resented how the fact RDR2 was a prequel railroaded it into becoming the complete depression fest it was

I knew the second John was mentioned that the ending was going to kill Arthur. (I feel retarded spoilering a game released over 6 years ago but I'll be nice)

and I know it was also somewhat destined by the time period

I love westerns like this. Where it's the final cowboys against the federal government. I mentioned Chavez Y Chavez from Young Guns earlier, but that's because Young Guns is one of my favorite films ever. They were Young guns who were driven by hatred and anger with no way to win in the end...

Tear jerking, anger inducing, and god damn it I love the American outlaw history. Bury me in Boot Hill.

I liked that mission, but it was ridiculous to represent Native Americans in that way; the way they hunted buffalo is possibly the most disgusting, inhumane and wasteful form of hunting that has ever existed. Just another absurd inaccuracy

They didn't have the balls to depict Natives (Indians) as the savages they actually were. The "Noble Savage" is one of the oldest god damn memes of US History.

There was that Suffragette too

LEMME VOTE LEMME VOTE LEMME VOTE LEMME VOTE LEMME VOTE

 

[Scarlett Johansson]

I haven't heard anything about that. Do you have a source to prove that?

Unfortunately yes. (EXTREMELY NSFW!)

 

[Meth Dick]

Unfortunately yes. (EXTREMELY NSFW!)

It gets the job done. RIP Mr. Raspberry Jam.

 

[Snekposter]

I mean, there's white people in the gang like Hosea, Sadie, and I think John too who also point it out, but yeah.

I'd argue Arthur knows it too.
"Dutch says a lot of things. That's his talent, talking."

His convos with John in The Sheep and the Goats as you walk through Valentine and Charles in A Strange Kindness as you ride to the creek are pretty enlightening, IMO.

 

[Scarlett Johansson]

To be fair, I am one of the few who never got Trevor's appeal. I dunno...unhinged bi psycho has been done before plenty of times. Idk.

I am curious how they'll write the new girl. Hope she's fun without that girlboss bullshit.

 

[Meth Dick]

Hope she's fun without that girlboss bullshit.

Not a chance. This is GTA's first female protagonist. They're going to beat you over the head so hard with girlboss "girls get it done!" shit you'd think you were playing the Saints Row reboot.
I'm completely doompilled on GTA VI.

 

[The Last Stand]

So I'm listening to Saints Row's licensed soundtrack, and I had a question? How were the contractual obligations for obtaining the various music rights for its soundtracks? R* has to remove songs from their games when they rerelease them. How is Volition different in that regard?

 

[Scarlett Johansson]

So I'm listening to Saints Row's licensed soundtrack, and I had a question? How were the contractual obligations for obtaining the various music rights for its soundtracks? R* has to remove songs from their games when they rerelease them. How is Volition different in that regard?

Did the remaster of 3 keep all the songs?

 

[Übertroon]

So I'm listening to Saints Row's licensed soundtrack, and I had a question? How were the contractual obligations for obtaining the various music rights for its soundtracks? R* has to remove songs from their games when they rerelease them. How is Volition different in that regard?

This might be me putting on the tinfoil hat, but what's the chance that Rockstar is just using it as an excuse to advertise new music and earn some extra cash?

 

[Smyrna]

So I'm listening to Saints Row's licensed soundtrack, and I had a question? How were the contractual obligations for obtaining the various music rights for its soundtracks? R* has to remove songs from their games when they rerelease them. How is Volition different in that regard?

Normally, most copyrighted content that is licensed for games is licensed for a set period of time (5 years, 10 years etc.). Once the license expires, the licensee either has to renew it, stop selling the game that contains the licensed content, or remove it from the game. Before Steam and online marketplaces became a thing, this wasn't usually an issue - the game would have gone out of print long before the licenses expire and there wouldn't be any interest in reissuing it or remastering it.

Steam and other online shops now obviously do allow for games to be sold in perpetuity, but for most publishers of games with licensed content the usual route is to just pull the game when the licenses expire. For example, try finding a racing game for sale on Steam with licensed cars that is over 10 years old. For most publishers, this is the easiest way to go about it, because they will have put out lots of new games in the interim and as a result interest in the old games is usually zero or nearly zero. So they stopped making money on it a long time ago, and it isn't worth either relicensing or removing the now-unlicensed content.

R* are different as they are publishing one game every 5 years and as GTAO has demonstrated, they can ride a particular cash cow for much longer than was possible in the past. So to pull the game from sale would lose them a lot of revenue, much more than they would have to spend on either removing the songs or relicensing them. I don't know for certain, but I think they choose to replace the songs as relicensing them would be more expensive than the original licenses were (the songs are now more popular thanks to being in the game and so the record label's pricing would reflect that), and I think there may be something in what @Übertroon says in that it gives them an opportunity to advertise new genres and get a sales bump that way.

 

[The Last Stand]

I've said this three times over, but Vice City has THE best safehouse in any GTA yet. Dare I say, best interior of ANY game yet. It wasn't enough that you'd have a save point by the hotel check-in desk; you'd have an interactive HOTEL room fully furnished to run around in.

I never noticed until later in life that items would spawn in as you progress through the story or side missions. It makes your safehouse feel lived in. It gives you indication that Tommy HIMSELF is making himself at home.