Grand Theft Auto

[SomTervo]

I was getting really, really frustrated with how prescribed the GTA games are by the time GTAIV rolled around. Even the game mechanics shit with phones and the internet.

 

Like, in the previews it was all 'oh you'll get a mission where you'll have to go online and apply for a job, then get into the office building and kill the interviewer', and I was anticipating it so fucking much because I had visions of true sandbox gameplay; you're told to kill the guy, but have no idea how to do it, so you go to the website, and find you can apply for a job, etc. etc. etc.- then in reality the game just straight up says:

 

Go to the internet cafe.

 

Go to the website.

 

Apply for a job.

 

Wait.

 

Get a suit.

 

Go to the building.

 

Kill the guy.

 

Success.

 

They could have left it totally up to the player- like made it an option to do a full frontal, but very dangerous assault on the building. Or broken into a back entrance. Or paid someone to drive a car into the front. Or ANYTHING more fun or creative or flexible. But no. Missions in GTA are awfully, awfully linear and prescribed, and it goes against everything the game is meant to be about. At least the gunfights are pretty dynamic. I mean, this shit was fine in San Andreas and earlier because the missions were so wacky, but in GTAIV they really had an opportunity to open missions up and get creative with it. But they didn't.

Edited November 1, 2012 by kenshi_ryden

[deanb]

To be fair it's not Hitman. They'd have to really narrow the scope of the game. Like think to Witcher n how relatively small it is as far as RPGs go. Yet it has stuff like you described, for example in one quest you're trying to find a killer, and if you just go along with it all, then you point to the wrong man. But if you buy and read a book on forensic anatomy (this is something you do off your own back, not part of the quest) or something like that, then during the autopsy instead of Geralt nodding along he points out specific things he's observed, and from that you get the right guy straight off. Can mainly only do that in games that don't cover whole cities with tons of characters and variables all over the place. With how open GTA IV is (And likely V too) you'd need to put a shit ton of work in each mission to make everyone have a phone number to call and distract them, or a timetable that you can drop in on them to get rid of them without raising any questions. Instead they make it so it's scripted with specific missions using specific functions. You make it open, you lose control.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

Yeah, you have to narrow the scale to open games up. Which is why Warren Spector's One City Block game idea always comes up.

[SomTervo]

But the problem is that in GTA's level design, that openness exists already. I suppose my issue is that they prescribe what the player actually does, far too much, despite giving the player physical freedom.

 

Just Cause 2 is an equally, probably more open game, yet when you're told to destroy a SAM site or something, it simply puts the waypoint there and lets you go at it. You can fly in, walk/ climb in the back, walk/ attack the front, suicide drive in, etc. In GTAIV this freedom already exists, but when you're told to attack a factory or something, the game will direct you to the entrance it wants you to enter by, direct you through the building how it wants you to, then direct you out the exit it wants you out of.

 

In the example I gave above, it would take the slightest, slightest bit of ingenuity to add a backdoor to the building, or a way to get through without subterfuge: and more importantly, maintaining GTA's style of direction, it would take nothing just to have a moment before you start playing which pans the building, shows you points of interest, and a caption reads: 'explore this area. There are many ways to get in, some of which involve going incognito'. And that's all it would have to say. GTA already does ridiculously wordy stuff just to tell you how hospitals/ police stations/ safehouses work.

 

Like, how many tenament buildings are there in GTAIV that have stairwells which you can enter and reach the roof by? Tons! And how many are not redundant? Almost none of them. There are maybe two or three that are used in the story. Even in the 'business man kill' level, it would take nothing to design a way to hop across from an adjacent roof onto it.

 

Sure, you can argue that this would open up GTA's gameplay too much, and just confuse/ bewilder the player. But as it is, the missions do the opposite, and they feel too closed or restricted. A lot of the open-air combat levels do capture a sense of this emergent level design, but they don't do anything with it and it only lasts a second. I think they need to sort that shit out. For most missions it's fine having that constant player direction, but as I said it would take a tiny bit of ingenuity to make, say, one area per several missions into a bit more of a narrative playground.

 

Anyway. GTAV looks good. That preview's out soon eh eh.

Edited November 2, 2012 by kenshi_ryden

[deanb]

Thing with Just Cause 2 though is you generally end up doing it pretty much the same way each time, and the mission structure rarely deviates from "destroy this object" right down to the side missions being "destroy this object". That's pretty much the purpose of the game. with GTA IV if it was always just "kill this guy" then it'd get a bit dull without the scripting to make variety and interest like shooting the guy by calling him.

[jayc4life]

It's funny you should be talking about this, Ben (DukeOfPwn here, iirc) tweeted this from LazyGamer about Dishonored having at least one obviously-easy solution per level because the playtesters hadn't the brains or the sense to push the boundaries to look for different ways of reaching the same end-goal. He also linked this from Hitman Absolution director Tore Blystad who also bemoans people's unwillingness to stray from the beaten path to find new solutions, simply because they're conditioned to not find anything or get a fail-state if they do.

 

I remember way back in the original Grand Theft Auto 1, one of the earliest missions had you being the bag-man dropping a briefcase of money off for a drug deal. What the game didn't tell you, was that you could kill the guy who was coming to collect the money and pocket it all yourself instead of letting him just walk away and get a score multiplier for completing the mission. You had to choose between a substantial points boost, or the score multiplier, but it never actively stated that, you had to figure it out for yourself. Considering back then, you had to get high scores with limited lives to unlock new cities and missions, it was a tough decision to make.

[SomTervo]

And there's nothing remotely close to that level choice or emergent level design in GTAIII onwards

[deanb]

You can pay a hooker, then either drive off or kill them and take your cash back. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if there's plenty of missions where you can kill the person you've just paid off. You consider killing someone in a gangster game "emergent level design"?

 

Also GTAII onwards also has one incy-wincy little difference to GTA n GTA II.

 

 

It doesn't have a score system.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Deanb
swapped GTAA for GTA2

[jayc4life]

I think you goofed Dean, that left screenshot's from GTA Advance, not GTA1. That HUD is from the "3-series".

[deanb]

Swapped it out. Not that it matters much, you'd get the point either way.

p.s This is what happens when images are incorrectly labelled.

[SomTervo]

Ehh, my point more specifically is that it lacks narrative emergence. So while yes, you can kill the hooker or not etc., that's more 'sandbox' emergence. If they added different ways to play narrative missions and shape your own narrative in story missions (albeit in small ways), which is what I'm arguing for, it wouldn't be the same. It'd be emergent level (i.e. narrative) design, not emergent game mechanic design.

 

Like the general sandbox stuff is emergent, as a sandbox full of game mechanics. But linear levels are the opposite, and the early GTA's never had levels/ missions as tailored or intricate as the ones in current GTA's. It's in these contexts that the devs could put in the tiniest bit more effort in route and space design, and less player direction, to make the narrative in these tight sequences more emergent.

Edited November 3, 2012 by kenshi_ryden

[deanb]

http://imgur.com/a/GsODP

 

Game Informer scans for your perusal. Oh, the game world is said to be larger than San Andreas, RDR and GTAIV. Combined.

[jayc4life]

Read these earlier, and I'm actually really looking forward to this hotshotting between characters business. I bet they're gonna come up with some swish picture-in-picture transition cinematics for when you do it during the missions, to give it a more movie-like presentation, akin to Max Payne 3 without the painkillers'n'alcohol blur effects of course.

[SomTervo]

Yeah, that shit's crazy right.

 

The only things I'm skeptical about are having an actual GTA OST for the first time, which is dynamic and plays during missions, and also the 'one disc per character' combo for the 360. But is that confirmed? I've just heard several random street-word sources saying it. Wouldn't be the worst, but it would be inconvenient.

 

I've been longing for a gameworld this big for so long. Tbh, Ass Creed 3 is actually scratching that itch right now. But GTAV will just plunge it's fist right through my itchy skin.

 

A lot of people are flipping out about the three protagonist thing, but I think it's a great idea. Will help counter a lot of issues GTA has always had; downtime, middle-man ability frustration, one-man-army frustration (I got that bad with GTAIV, it just isn't believable how much of a powerhouse Niko is), and death-frustration. Dying in GTA is one of the most annoying things. A last stand mode or NPCs who can help you would solve this- I'm hoping they drop something like that into GTAV.

 

EDIT: Also, unlikely but would be awesome, campaign co-op? I mean the framework for three autonomous player-characters is already there. Although some missions only have one and some have two or three. Still!

Edited November 9, 2012 by kenshi_ryden

[Thorgi Duke of Frisbee]

Three dudes. Not a single female. What a missed opportunity.

[Hot Heart]

Yeah, I'm still pretty excited, but I would have hoped for more distinct characters with a story that gradually intertwines (like the Episodes, but to a greater extent). Playing an undercover cop or something, would have been a bit more interesting.

[SomTervo]

That's a good idea. The three characters' lives will probably still intertwine a lot, knowing Rockstar. But to have some more subversive layering threads would be cool.

 

The characters are still fairly distinct though? Like you don't play all three all the time, there will be whole plot lines of phases where you only play one of them. I loved the bit where it said the characters you aren't currently playing go about their day to day business. That's awesome.

 

Three dudes. Not a single female. What a missed opportunity.

 

True thing. Is that indicative of inherent sexism in the industry, or the series? Or it could just be justified through biological bias? "Women aren't strong enough to do all this manly action shit" yadda yadda.

[Mal]

Three dudes. Not a single female. What a missed opportunity.

True. Imagine if GTA had someone like this:

Okay, maybe more like Revy than Scar Face.

[Hot Heart]

The characters are still fairly distinct though? Like you don't play all three all the time, there will be whole plot lines of phases where you only play one of them. I loved the bit where it said the characters you aren't currently playing go about their day to day business. That's awesome.

 

They're distinct in that they come from different backgrounds and have different personalities, but I meant as if they were unaware of each other and then, gradually, their stories came together rather than them all being thick as (bank) thieves.

 

Not that I'm disappointed with what they have done, in some regards, since this approach seems more centred on interesting gameplay anyway, plus I can see the potential for conflict and such.

[Waldorf and Statler]

It's a missed opportunity but those complaining "Rockstar should've done it!" forget that it is their property and that they tell the story they want to tell. And seeing how crime syndicates are largely a boy's club, at least throughout history, it's no surprise. I WOULD have liked an undercover cop called Mr. Orange though.

[deanb]

Sure their own story to tell, but it's still a missed opportunity. And being "a boy's club" doesn't mean they can't have women as a protag. In fact that'd make it more compelling a story to tell. Police don't tend to stop a chase just because you went into your house, this is hardly a game rooted to reality.

[SomTervo]

You're right from a gameplay standpoint, but in the GTA games of this generation R* have explicitly said that they are going for reality in the stories/ worlds. True-to-life crime stuff. Even though it's still ridiculous fantastical action in gameplay, the actual stories and dialogue are grounded in what would actually happen. I don't think they want to undermine that.

 

True thing about them not knowing each other and gradually finding out about each other. Would be a lovely narrative. Tbh, we don't know how the narrative will pan out from the open; maybe that will happen? We have to start as one person only, obviously. Perhaps the other two aren't just thrown in immediately but seen from a distance and gradually integrated?

Edited November 9, 2012 by kenshi_ryden

[Waldorf and Statler]

Honestly when they feel like making a game about a female protagonist they're welcome to. But in a game about crime and mafia I'd rather play as a man unless the situation calls for something different. As far as I know they personally never said they were going for a female protagonist and they switched their mind that was just speculation from hopeful internet equalists. Just like everybody complaining the games shouldn't take place in Ameirca.

[TheMightyEthan]

I feel the same way about female protagonists (and games not being in America) as I do about gay characters in games: sure, overall I'd like to see more of it, but each game is unique and I can't really criticize any specific one for not doing it (barring something really extreme like replacing Samus with a man).

[deanb]

Sure if you've got a game like say....Uncharted where you've only got one PC, so no complaints if you're PC is a dude*. But in a game that presents choice to the player, then being just dudes is a certainly something that can be criticised. No matter how much you were to proclaim that only men can be crime figures, like the infamous Bobbie and Clyde. (Cos of course womens prisons are made just so there's some nice empty buildings here n there).

 

And no they've not said they were even going to be doing three characters So there was no assumptions to be made there would be a nice equal spread of player choice. But now folks know that there's three PCs, folks are wondering about the lack of variety presented for players.

 

*Though this is probably a bad example as he's emulating Lara Croft and has two female sidekicks.