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

[Bob Barbas]

It's why I can't take anyone who says John Marston or Niko Bellic was a well-written character seriously.

Disagree.
I found Niko to have a decent amount of depth to him, on some level he knows he's a bad guy and doesn't want to be a bad guy but at the same time he doesn't have much of a choice, that and he wants revenge for what happened to his friends however the pursuit of that revenge turns him into a worse monster than the guy he was chasing in the first place...

Okay yeah actually reading it out loud, it is just baby's first """dark and gritty""" revenge story. I guess I just liked him because I thought it was novel to have a GTA protag that's at least self-aware enough to know they aren't the hero whereas previous protagonists didn't really dwell on much if at all the bad things they do.

John though? Yeah as much as I like John I can agree his personality is pretty much
>[Insert snarky one liner here]
>MUH FAMILY

 

[Problematic User Forever]

I think people found code related to the mission creator in the files like years ago, they've just taken their sweet ass time finally releasing it.
Hell all of the cop stuff that's been added was all originally meant to be part of some cop themed update from back in the day but they cancelled it for whatever reason and are now recycling bits and pieces of it in different updates.
Kind of like how many people suspect the Doomsday Heist was originally the secret agent Trevor DLC or whatever that got completely scrapped.

There was evidence of the mission creator as early as late 2013 when the original Deathmatch and Race creators were released. I think it's how some of the original hacker high dollar lobbies were made.

I remember specifically planning out some missions I wanted to make back in like 2014 based on The SHIELD, but then it never came out and I just stopped caring about it.

 

[winderson_silva]

but at the same time he doesn't have much of a choice

I do like Niko, but I feel like he doesn't try much to do something different. As in, his jobs are pretty much all about go there and kill x. Granted, he didn't come to America to be a wagie, but he still did something very stupid (stealing from Ray and coming with no real plan for what to do next). In the process, he fucks up Roman. Granted, ultimately, Roman was going to be fucked anyway with his own choices, but Niko sure messed up.

I think the problem lies in the removal of Estates and businesses compared to other games, so the only way to earn money and complete missions is to go guns blazing.

It reminds me of one quote in Warhammer, where, when confronted with a "There is no other way", a guy answers "What other ways you tried?"

Luis, I like him a lot, but he is also not perfect, as others pointed out, he is kinda like Franklin, and most of his missions are him being pulled to a job by his loyalty rather than his own choice.

 

[Crypt Kicker]

It's why I can't take anyone who says John Marston or Niko Bellic was a well-written character seriously.
Their stories were good, but the characters themselves were mediocrity made digital flesh.

I'm also getting sick of the same stoic "I'm too above all this shit to care but fuck it I guess I'll help anyway" characters.
One of the lines from RDR2 that really grinded my gears was Arthur saying to Sadie after her Husband was killed "We're bad men, but we ain't them" as if admitting to be killing a murderous thief makes it okay. The same kind of "Well I might be a X,Y,and Z, but at least I admit it!"
No, that doesn't magically make it less of a bad thing if you're self aware that what you're doing is wrong/bad, if anything that makes it worse yet rockstar fucking LOVES these characters.
Niko, John Marston, Arthur Morgan, Jimmy Hopkins all had the same kind of character.

Tommy Vercetti didn't bullshit anyone with "I'm really a good guy deep down!" and as much as I like to shit on CJ from San Andreas, he was pretty clear that his reasons for doing shit was out of self interest and that's the kind of personal honesty I appreciate in a character.

 

[Prophetic Spirit]

I'm also getting sick of the same stoic "I'm too above all this shit to care but fuck it I guess I'll help anyway" characters.
One of the lines from RDR2 that really grinded my gears was Arthur saying to Sadie after her Husband was killed "We're bad men, but we ain't them" as if admitting to be killing a murderous thief makes it okay. The same kind of "Well I might be a X,Y,and Z, but at least I admit it!"
No, that doesn't magically make it less of a bad thing if you're self aware that what you're doing is wrong/bad, if anything that makes it worse yet rockstar fucking LOVES these characters.
Niko, John Marston, Arthur Morgan, Jimmy Hopkins all had the same kind of character.

Tommy Vercetti didn't bullshit anyone with "I'm really a good guy deep down!" and as much as I like to shit on CJ from San Andreas, he was pretty clear that his reasons for doing shit was out of self interest and that's the kind of personal honesty I appreciate in a character.

With Arthur is more visible in a bad way.
But the earlier ones are decent:

• Jimmy Hopkins is just a kid with a gold's heart when helping but had to force something when necessary. This is more prevalent in the first chapter when was betrayed by Gary and fought against Russel. He even says that about getting all the leaderships to keep peace. But when he became more and more thristy for power, does something stupid and falls off.
• Niko Bellic knows he can't change. His entire life is lies and tragedy. This is become prevalent when the only thing he cares is family. The 2 endings are proof of that.
• John Marston was forced by the gov to hunt down the rest of his only gang. He only cared about his family until the end. He knows his past can't be erased. Even Dutch before dying and the Strange Man tells him his inevitable fate.

Not even talking about Michael, Trevor, Johnny, Luis and Franklin. They are mid in R* storytelling.

But with Arthur becames more obnoxius.

 

[winderson_silva]

Honestly, I don't mind the cliche as much as I dislike how common it is, and how it is always used as a positive. You could make a character with the "at least I admit" type, and make him look worse because of it, someone with no illusions of being a good person, but it is to show them as a complete monster.

It is like, idk, evil characters being against specific things (racism, slavery, rape, etc.), or "angels are bad", at one point it stops being a subversion and becomes just the new standard.

I think a good way it is used is in one 40K story, The Marines Malevolent, a chapter that doesn't give a shit about honor, etc, got a guy who taunts a Black Templar into dueling him just so he can steal his sword, he wins the duel, kills the Templar, and gets the sword. After that, another Templar gets pissy and kills him from the back, proving that their "honor" is bullshit.

In this case, the Malevolent being honest isnt used to show hes "better", and he actually suffers the consequences of his action, but it shows the other side is full of shit.

 

[Love Is Blue]

got a guy who taunts a Black Templar into dueling him just so he can steal his sword

what a fuckin chad

 

[winderson_silva]

For Arthur, I think the game format also makes writing him well challenging. Not to say it is impossible, and indeed better writers could obviously do a better job, but RDR 2 feels... weird?

As in, in RDR1, Honor was basically a cosmetic as far story cares, you can only really pick an evil path in some 4 side missions, John's lines remain the same as evil he can get, he will be nice to Jack with low honor, and be indifferent to Rickets with high honor.

In 2, now Honor affects things, but not enough. You can help the veteran and the widow even at peak low honor, granted, just removing missions based on honor would be stupid, but they could, idk, have Arthur be much less selfless in these two, maybe with low honor he helps them because he thinks he can get some money out of it. You do get a different ending, but it only really changes the last 20 minutes of Arthur's story in how he meets his end.

There are some amazing scenes based on honor, like how Strauss will say he thought they were partners with low honor, but he says he thought they were friends with high honor, but there are just so many ways to get high or low honor in between missions that the writing can look schizophrenic. Again, I don't think Rockstar should limit player freedom with their choices, but it does affect how Arthur is written compared with John in 1, who is a much more predetermined personality.

Maybe the game could have benefited from another metric? Like the reputation on the West Coast Fallouts? Where it is separate from your good and evil. Improving the "Fame" mechanic from 1 could do that, I think.

But I am not a writer, so what do I know?

what a fuckin chad

Actually reading Marines Malevolent stuff is quite cool, they are a good way to write assholes, they aren't magically better than others, and they do suffer from their actions, they are enjoyable, and a good mirror to the Marines who are "good."

 

[Bear Powers]

I revisited GTA3 and VC after I don't even know how many years, it had to be before steam wiped everyone's accumulated playtime, which was I think in 2009. In any case I put so, so many hours into the series, even before steam, I still have the original PC discs in the attic. I used the Defective Edition, and believe me, I know. It was mostly laziness plus the fact that even after going through all the modding rigamarole weird shit was happening, such as Big Smoke missing half his body, so I went the easy route. While I could forget some, or even occasionally much of the time how bad this version is, it is simply disgusting how little effort was put into it, and some of what effort they did put into it just shits all over long time players.

The design and look of the NPC's was always stylized but I just can't understand why everyone looks like some freakish inhuman mutant in the DE versions. I'm left speechless at seeing how many Indian names there are in the credits, and it really does becomes believable that that's the reason why Tommy looks suspiciously brown and south asiatic.

But it's the little things that flip me off - namely the flight controls. What the actual fuck, they removed being able to spin the helicopter on its rotor axis. This is basic functionality just completely gone. I got used to it, to a point, I could get around fine, but trying to aim your gun or rockets, or just move your tail boom so you didn't explode when wanting to do something as simple as FUCKING LAND was a rotten joke. I'm honestly not sure I want to start San Andreas for this specific reason, the flight school where you have to blow shit up will be a nightmare. Can anyone tell me how bad that one is? To say nothing of just being able to jump and wreck shit with the Hunter.

Also things were still tied to framerate. I had to lock things at 30 fps for more than a few jumps with the PCJ because vehicles will not get up to speed fast enough at higher framerates. Plus getting that wheelie cheevo was simply a non-starter past 60, was easy beyond belief at 30.

Had to vent, thanks for listening to my four+ year late TED talk.

 

[Bob Barbas]

I just can't understand why everyone looks like some freakish inhuman mutant in the DE versions.

I'm so glad I purchased the originals on steam before Cuckstar delisted them.

 

[Prophetic Spirit]

I'm so glad I purchased the originals on steam before Cuckstar delisted them.

Same as me.

 

[Would]

Disagree.
I found Niko to have a decent amount of depth to him, on some level he knows he's a bad guy and doesn't want to be a bad guy but at the same time he doesn't have much of a choice, that and he wants revenge for what happened to his friends however the pursuit of that revenge turns him into a worse monster than the guy he was chasing in the first place...

That wasn’t quite what I was referring to.
But now that you mention it.
My issue with the self-aware bad guys R* made post LCS is that, to quote Jerry Martinez: “You’re trying to be the good guy in a bad man’s game.”, which even by 2006 was played out in Hollywood films. I much prefer Tommy/CJ/Tony in this regard because they don’t need to dwell on the morality of their actions cuz they know they’re bad men and made peace with it. Tommy calls himself a convicted psychotic killer and drug dealer, CJ casually admits he likes maiming and murder and finds thrill in stealing, and Tony was raised to be a criminal lest he disappoint his Ma.
No one but “I just read my first gritty novel” is going to debate if GTA protagonists are good people, trying to dwell on the morality of it all just comes off as pretentious.

That said, What I was actually referring to was Victor/Niko/John/Michael/Arthur all have the personality of a graphic tee at TJ Maxx.
It’s all the same sarcastic remarks and sassy grunts that no one IRL enjoys the company of. I don’t think a single person would want to be around someone like Dwayne who just mopes about the old days and only talks in short sardonic quips unless he really really trusts you.
R* knew this. Why else is the reward for siding with Playboy so shit vs siding with Dwayne? (Not saying Playboy is the model of charisma, but at least you could smoke a blunt with the guy who at least tries to have a convo)

They really need to drop the sarcasm. It’s not the mid 00s anymore. Almost anything is better than this tired excuse of a personality.

This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t like a character or game either. God knows my favorite media is retarded or easy to digest stuff- by all means like what you do. I just chuckle when people try to act like their tastes are super refined or “mEdIa LiTeRaTe” because liking something simple or silly somehow makes you silly or simple.

 

[The Last Stand]

I much prefer Tommy/CJ/Tony in this regard because they don’t need to dwell on the morality of their actions cuz they know they’re bad men and made peace with it. Tommy calls himself a convicted psychotic killer and drug dealer, CJ casually admits he likes maiming and murder and finds thrill in stealing, and Tony was raised to be a criminal lest he disappoint his Ma.
No one but “I just read my first gritty novel” is going to debate if GTA protagonists are good people, trying to dwell on the morality of it all just comes off as pretentious.

I'm surprised you did not put Huang Lee from GTA: Chinatown Wars on your list of preferred GTA protagonists. Of course, Chinatown Wars is written more in cheek compared to previous entries.

Setting the stage, Huang Lee is a spoiled brat of a Triad boss only in Liberty City to deliver a sword to his uncle for good favor. He constantly makes snide remarks towards everybody with no regard. Everybody is a caricature or cliche, but its writing works beautifully for its intended tone.

 

[winderson_silva]

it had to be before steam wiped everyone's accumulated playtime

Shame I couldn't get 3 on Steam before it got removed. I got VC and SA.
Being honest, shit like the Definitive edition is pretty much dead on arrival because if you are just picking the same game and putting some bad graphics coat over it, why not just keep the game as it is, and only add a few quality of life improvements? Like a map for 3 and checkpoints (which they did)
That they picked a mobile company to do it, after they already fucked up the mobile and PS3 ports, is bizarre.

You either remake the game from the ground up (which we all know rockstar wont do), or you just make a port.

GTA: Chinatown Wars

Should I try it?

 

[Bob Barbas]

Being honest, shit like the Definitive edition is pretty much dead on arrival because if you are just picking the same game and putting some bad graphics coat over it, why not just keep the game as it is, and only add a few quality of life improvements? Like a map for 3 and checkpoints (which they did)

I literally have mods installed that add all of the QoL improvements from the Dogshit Edition to the original San Andreas and even a few extras like the one that ports the driveby system from GTA IV/V to San Andreas. It's great actually.

 

[winderson_silva]

Thats the problem, you don't need to make a new version that delists the others for it, and if you're only gonna do the bare minimum, why bother? They could rather just make a PC port for LCS and VCS instead of the 100000th SA release.

 

[OJ Simpson]

Nice little surprise this morning.

 

[Captain Syrup]

I do like Niko, but I feel like he doesn't try much to do something different. As in, his jobs are pretty much all about go there and kill x.

IV is technically the best GTA and also the least fun one. Everyone was like, oh shit, Russian mob, finally, this is gonna be real psycho shit. And it's just Yakov Smirnoff ass Russians.

I think R* just don’t understand Russians. Couldn’t caricature them properly. The missions: just drive to this warehouse and shoot six guys named Ivan.

I know GTA3 and later were above and beyond anything they made previously, but I wish GTA1&2 got the love they deserve.
That pseudo futuristic setting of the second game had a great atmosphere.

l played GTA1 after growing up on GTA2 and this game feels like it was made by cops. You bumped into traffic one too many times? Death penalty. The cops are insane.



And the hit detection is so bad the machine gun is basically a noisemaker. The real weapon is just running people over like it’s Frogger for sociopaths.

I tried to beat each city without save states and it was like pulling teeth while the dentist is yelling slurs. The final level is, “you must know every road and alleyway in this fake American shithole or you’re dead.”



But it's a way better satire of America than the later ones. And the gang bosses screaming at you when you fail a mission is pretty funny. It makes losing feel good.



5/10 out of ten, horrible experience. Would not recommend. Also the most realistic GTA.

 

[Mushroom Rings]

Does anyone else find the selection of hidden package rewards in Vice City a little strange? First, it gives you body armor, which is certainly great, but then it continues with a chainsaw (which I never really bother to use), colt, flamethrower, and a sniper rifle. After finding half of the packages in the game your safehouse isn't stacked with any regular weapons.

I think I prefer other 3D games' progression of a pistol, SMG, shotgun, body armor (in slightly varied order). It just feels more "normal" and useful to me.

Should I try it?

I recommend it. For me, it's one of the funnest GTA games to play. I beat it a few times and every time I had a blast playing it. Controls are pretty good, story is fun, the drug-selling minigame is, well, addictive and probably my favorite way to earn money in any GTA ever. Also, I appreciate the option to replay individual story missions after beating the game and I am genuinely surprised it took this long for this to be possible.

Huang is a pretty interesting GTA protagonist to me because of what @The Last Stand touched upon in his post. I would've expected a spoiled, sarcastic young brat to be unbearable to play as, but it works very well thanks to the overall crazy tone of the game. Also, his constant sarcasm and snide comments never got grating to me because other characters give him plenty of shit in return and put him in his place.

Personally, I prefer the PSP version to the DS version. While the lack of touchscreen controls makes the microgames slightly less fun, literally everything else is better. I just wish the radio stations weren't completely without voice tracks.

 

[Captain Syrup]

Does anyone else find the selection of hidden package rewards in Vice City a little strange?

I remember in III the hidden packages actually doing something. VC is like, “Would you like the platinum dick blaster or the Scarface-ass belt-fed nonsense", but "I’m still using the SMG.” You spray the SMG, mission over, go home.



Rocket launcher is there because helicopters exist. But cops barely show up during missions. “Oh, this is a story thing. We’ll let it slide.” Worst missions in the trilogy, easily.