It’s been a while since Newsweek’s N’Gai Croal and I have disagreed as much as we have in the exchange you can read below. We’re arguing about “Grand Theft Auto IV” for the first installment of an all-new Vs. Mode.
Whose side are you on?
Follow the debate below or on N’Gai’s Level Up blog. Check back Thursday for Round Two. And, yes, there are plot spoilers below.
Date: June 2, 2008
To: N’Gai Croal
Fr: Stephen Totilo
Re: The Addict And The Animal
N’Gai,
In my favorite mission of “Grand Theft Auto IV,” Niko Bellic doesn’t kill anyone. He’s offered sex, but he doesn’t give in.
He’s just a chauffeur, essentially. And he makes decision I don’t think I’d make in a moment in which the game doesn’t give me a choice — not like it does in several moments praised as the best in “GTA IV.”
It is indeed the little things that make “Grand Theft Auto” games so grand. The sequence I just alluded to is one of the littler details in the game. It’s a mission involving a drug addict named Marnie, a character who you will only encounter if you bring Niko past City Hall in the game’s version of Manhattan after a certain number of hours played.
And, spoiler, what she wants so very badly is for Niko Bellic to help her feed her addiction. She asks for money. She offers herself. And ultimately she accepts Niko’s limited charity: a long car-ride to her dealer where no shooting occurs, just a small-time drug deal. The whole time Niko drives her there he tries to talk her out of it. He fails, but under the player’s control, he drives her into temptation anyway.
What I just described to you both is and isn’t the kind of “GTA IV” you’ve likely heard about. Yes, I’ve described a game about crime in the city. A game that features a man who can be controlled to do less than socially acceptable things. But I’ve also described a game that contains, below its heights of big crime fantasy, some sidewalk-level tragedy. There’s a junkie girl. And there’s this most violent of men, who has no tool in his arsenal that will help her kick her habit.
I’ve also described a game that contains, below its heights of big crime fantasy, some sidewalk-level tragedy. |
You and I have played dozens of hours of “Grand Theft Auto” games. We know them for the mangy untamed beasts that they are. We know that the only thing more impressive than the amount of polish Rockstar applies to each new cityscape of urban delinquency is the amount of these games that remains un-polished. The “GTA” games are incredible in scale and detail, deft in their portrayal of freedom’s limits, aurally grand and as entertainingly violent, disruptive and calamitous as any games before them. Still, each game of the series pokes their players with rough edges: missions of awkward difficulty, controls that improve but can still frustrate, characters who don’t seem consistent.
I’m left wondering what the developers of “GTA” should try harder with and what hopes for the series they should abandon.
These “GTA” games resist smoothing. They resist efforts to streamline them into a taut, refined experience. The cell phone that keeps Niko connected to his friends, the police computer that locates crimes, and all the other elements of “IV” that replace the contrivance of old games with greater realism are overwhelmed by the game-ness “GTA” can’t shake. We’re not playing a movie, not by hour 30 or even hour 15 when a player’s choice or a developer’s one extra set of missions sends Niko the game avatar to do something Niko the character would never do.
I’m left wondering what the developers of “GTA” should try harder with and what hopes for the series they should abandon. |
“GTA” is an inconsistent beast. And, to go back a metaphor, they make me think not just of an animal that may be both untamed and un-tame-able but of Marnie, the addict. They make me wonder if there’s really any way they can ever get beyond their fixation with certain familiar ways.
This new “GTA” was made to be more sophisticated, more grown up, I think. It introduces moral choice. It skips rainbow afros and giant sex-toy weapons for a story that, initially, is a barely violent exploration of the eyes-just-shut start of the American dream. It’s a more mature “GTA.”
Yet there’s a guy at work here at MTV who is inconsolable over the exclusion of planes and tanks in “GTA IV.” He wants to wreak mayhem. He sees a “GTA” as the sandbox it was once hyped to be. He wants unhinged “GTA.” That “GTA” is in “GTA IV,” in any of the spots where rules are broken. It’s not there as a cheat-code tank. But it’s there when you ignore the game’s orders and kill the character the narrative was discouraging you from knocking off. It’s there when you ignore dating Kate or bowling with Little Jacob and piss them off. It’s there when, even with just the reserved wardrobe of “GTA IV” you find to outfit Niko in a ridiculous ensemble.
In playing “GTA IV” I was reminded that “GTA” is at its most fun when it’s tweaking, when it has the shakes, when it can’t abandon the violence, the transgressions, the subversions of its own rules. The other style of “GTA” — the one that bottlenecks its story, that keeps Niko moving forward and lands him with a bunch of mobsters, that picks your vehicle for you sometimes, that tries to keep characters consistent and deliver a moral over the course of 30 hours, this classy, more respectable, more constrained, more cleaned up, rehabilitated “GTA” — doesn’t feel like the “GTA” I’ve known. Or at least the one I like telling friends about. That “GTA” has always been there, but it’s been subdued. With “GTA IV,” though, it may be on the rise. Is this the new “GTA” and one that we want?
It’s the game on which its creators tried to exert their tightest grip, making all the more tantalizing the moments it slipped away. |
I played “Grand Theft Auto IV” game with the feeling that it’s the game on which its creators tried to exert their tightest grip, making all the more tantalizing the moments it slipped away. I enjoyed trying to subvert it all the more. To use both of my metaphors again I felt the developers were trying to harness it and clean it up in the service of telling an important story, of being a transcendent cultural work. I feel like they’ve gone half-way to something new, to a different “GTA” than we’ve known. And I’m wondering if they should complete that step or if they should hold back.
I’m rooting for more street-level tragedy and comedy, for something messy, for something that isn’t built to someday be smooth, mended and gracefully operatic.
What do you think? Do you like the new, restrained, refined “GTA”? Or is it time to bring back the ‘fros, the sex-toy weapons and expectation that the story more-so than the gameplay will mean something big? What do we want our Marnie to be and what help do we hope they’ll give her?
-Stephen
***
Date: June 13, 2008
To: Stephen Totilo
Fr: N’Gai Croal
Re: Liberty City Is a Platform
Stephen,
It’s so tempting to ignore you and write about my favorite moment in “Grand Theft Auto IV.” But I’m feeling oddly generous after such a long layoff between Vs. Mode battles, so I’ll engage you. Even if I’m a little surprised at your response to the game. After all, you’re Mr. Innovation Bias. Shouldn’t you be wildly applauding the shock of Rockstar North’s new vibe rather than expressing your conservative longing for past “Grand Theft” gameplay, masked as a call for the subversive over the sublime? Eiji Aonuma does the same ol’, same ol’ with Phantom Hourglass; you say you’re getting bored. Rockstar North attempts something novel; you say you miss the way things used to be. The only thing left for you to do is urge them to remake the previous “GTA”s using the latest tech, amirite?
Even if I’m a little surprised at your response to the game. |
Besides, weren’t you the one who advanced the theory that multiplayer was where we would find the bulk of the sandbox-y pleasures of “GTA IV”? You want Rockstar North to roll it for you, when perhaps what they’ve done is given you the Philly and the Purple Haze so that you can roll it yourself.
Or maybe I’m the one who’s been too easily satisfied by Rockstar’s more stately, better-controlling opus, while more experienced fans grit their teeth. Take poster Shimuro on NeoGAF. In the thread titled “Final Thoughts: Grand Theft Auto IV and OOT apologists,“ he opens with a litany of praise for the game before presenting a laundry list of complaints, including:
The game was good, no doubt, but it entirely forgot about its roots. “Grand Theft Auto” is a sandbox game and that sandbox is pretty damn weak. It entirely forgets a certain group of people in favor for people who only care about story. People like me who appreciate both the story and the vast amount of things to do. There is little f—ing around in “GTAIV,” it’s mostly all serious business. The problem with “GTAIV” isn’t that it’s “back to basics”, because that’s false - “GTAIII” has more content and things to do than “GTAIV.” It’s just a step back in general, lacking the creativity, variety that made the past 3d “GTA”’s memorable….
Summary: Sandbox game this is not. “GTAIV,” while doing a lot right entirely forgets its genre roots in the name of “realism” and because certain things were “out of Niko’s character” as publicized by Rockstar Games. I dearly hope this is not the direction they plan to take the series in, or I’m going to have to stop playing one of my favorite series and pick up another open-ended series.
If I didn’t already know your GAF handle, I’d swear that Himuro was you!
One of Rockstar’s aims with “GTA IV” was to make it more accessible to newcomers. |
I can’t share Himuro’s perspective, because I wasn’t a connoisseur of the previous games the way he clearly is. But it sounds as though he’s articulating a lot of your concerns. For a relative newcomer like myself, the streamlined formula sounds just right, and I’ve recently learned that one of Rockstar’s aims with “GTA IV” was to make it more accessible to newcomers. But in doing so, is Rockstar permanently leaving its most loyal, most die-hard fans behind?
I don’t think it’s yet time for you and the other dead-enders to render such a judgement because, like you, I recently had a limo ride that blew my mind. Only this limo ride didn’t take place in Liberty City. It began in Napa Valley, CA, following the conclusion of Ziff-Davis’ Electronic Gaming Summit, where Valve director of business development and legal affairs Jason Holtman and I shared a limousine to San Francisco International Airport. During the 80 minute ride, we had a wide-ranging conversation, giving me a good handle on Valve’s philosophy–and its relevance to action-adventure games like “GTA IV” which are designed for the integration of post-release downloadable content.
Take “Team Fortress 2” for PC. The first couple of sets of downloads were additional maps. Then Valve integrated achievements into Steam and added an achievement path for “TF2″’s Medic, complete with a brand-new melee weapon for those who complete it. Next up: an achievement path for the Pyro, a new melee weapon and one of Valve’s hilarious intro movies, this time for the Sniper.
Most developers of action-adventure titles extend their games along a single meaningful axis (i.e. maps, vehicles and game types), along with perhaps a second, cosmetic axis (i.e. costumes, decals and achievements). Weapons generally fall under the meaningful category, but they’re tricky to add–especially for competitive multiplayer games–because they can throw a game’s balance out of whack. If, with every update, Valve can now simultaneously extend “TF2″ along multiple axes–two meaningful (maps and weapons) and two cosmetic (cinematics and achievements)–along how many more axes can Rockstar extend a narrative-rich open world game like “GTA IV”? Shall I list some of them?
· single-player missions
· multiplayer missions and game types
· co-op missions and game types
· characters
· interiors
· boroughs (show Shaolin some love, y’all)
· friend paths
· vehicles
· weapons
· clothing stores and clothing
· radio stations
· music
· commercials
· TV shows
· restaurants
· packages
· Web sites
· ring tones
· abilities
· everything else Stephen Totilo believes is missing
I’m sure I’ve allowed some aspects of the game that could be extended to go unmentioned. But I think you can already see the possibilities inherent in what I’ve laid out. And that’s not even taking into account two final axes that Rockstar has already experimented with in its standalone console and handheld games: time and space.
What if subsequent titles like a new “Vice City” or “San Andreas” could be saved to the Xbox 360’s hard drive to create a single Grand Theft America? |
With “Liberty City Stories” and “Vice City Stories,” Rockstar has already shown that it can tell stories in the same physical location at different points in time. Why couldn’t the DLC packs let us play as Little Jacob or Dimitri when they first came to Liberty City; or Dwayne and Playboy X as they were coming up in the streets before Dwayne went to prison; or as a new character in events set after the events of “GTA IV.” As for space, if “GTA IV” can fit on a single Xbox 360 DVD-9 which holds seven gigabytes of data, what if subsequent titles like a new “Vice City” or “San Andreas” could be saved to the Xbox 360’s hard drive to create a single Grand Theft America, a persistent world in which adventures can take place in multiple cities, located in multiple states and set during multiple time periods?
This is what careful game design, downloadable content and sizable hard drives allow. If Rockstar North producer Leslie Benzies is correct in his estimation that “Grand Theft Auto IV” cost $100 million to develop, then the company would be remiss in not exploring some MMO-like business models. (After all, the last game I know of that took four-plus years to develop and cost $100 million to make is “World of Warcraft.”) So if Rockstar has spent all of this time and money to establish Liberty City –a sprawling play space that can accommodate many more gameplay possibilities — it would behoove them to do so, not only with the two planned DLC packs, but well beyond them, as any MMO would do. And if this sounds a lot like the Everlasting Gobstopper of Interactive Entertainment theory that I advanced in our January Vs. Mode exchange on “Burnout Paradise,” well, it should.
I want Rockstar to take the possibility space that is “Liberty City” and keep building on it. They can experiment with tone: one expansion pack could be primarily comic; another tragic; another brutal; another frothy. They can set one in the 1970s; another in 2020. I said that Rockstar is showing its maturity by realizing that it doesn’t have to be all things to all gamers, but let me revise that statement: it doesn’t have to be all things to all gamers at all times. It’s wiser to take a slice of what’s possible and offer that initially, while gradually, with every content release, adding more layers on top of a very strong foundation.
k
Cheers,
N’Gai
Vs. Mode returns later this week (Thursday we hope!) with Round Two.
And next week, N’Gai and I tackle your comments and questions in Monday’s final round.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
I wasn’t enamored with the game or the possibilities the game supposedly presents, at least compared to how both of you manage to articulate your respective points. The excerpt posted yesterday from each of your respective pieces really didn’t do either of you justice in retrospect. Though, I think both kind of fail to touch on a few truths in games and get caught up in gushing to a certain respect.
I’m going to use fighting games as an example here, since they’re most familiar to me. Street Fighter, as a series, is a fairly good platform to look at as far as what expectations can do to your fan base, and more importantly, to your game.
Street Fighter I was a fairly base experience. If you want to view it from an artistic vantage point, it established a world, though it wasn’t until Street Fighter II that that world gained the notoriety the series holds today for being a great game. Because Street Fighter II, as a video game, was light years ahead of the Street Fighter I. It took the ideas that Street Fighter I established as a video game and created a base that would always keep players coming back.
Though competitive games have that advantage in comparison to single player romps, hear me out please.
With the move to Street Fighter III, Capcom had hoped to establish a great looking game that fixed some of the problems players had with the previous entry. They used Virtua Fighter as a design template, hoping their blocking/parry would create a much more meaty fighting experience in comparison to the previous entry.
Today, as truth would have it, the problem that most players had with Street Fighter II were that they just weren’t any good at it. They didn’t understand the nuances involved, they were not the devoted players in a crowded arcade literally paying an investment in to understand the title.
Street Fighter III looks better, some would argue it has a better visual design going for it in comparison to Street Fighter II… but most players, players who have the talent and experience to literally dissect the game verbally most intrinsicly, say that Street Fighter II was the better game.
Those players miss the characters and the themes established, they miss the base that Street Fighter III traded away, in some cases traded away via ignoring their investment and time and knowledge earned in the arcade.
The irony about Street Fighter as a series is that it has always changed aesthetics, always changed the way it was played compared to the past iteration, and always changed the characters in a narrative sense to establish a new generation of fighters… it’s just that when Capcom found something good as a video game, they abandoned the greater part of that formula. Even after countless updates of the game via multiple arcade release. Five total if I remember correctly.
That’s how Grand Theft Auto IV seems to me when I look at it. It seemingly abandons great ideas from an established formula in favor of a narrative that isn’t going to universally appeal to players. Story and video games are a hard mix, you two both seem to be talking about the job of a scenario writer rather than what a story crafter would accomplish.
Grand Theft Auto IV doesn’t always give you meaningful decisions and falls apart as a game after a brilliant bank heist mission, though I’m sure some would argue otherwise… not a single pioneer of that game that I know is still playing it on my X-Box Live friend’s list. The multiplayer component of the game is so laughably bad, asking for more additions to something that has crappy infrastructure just seems so reaching, so weak. The following is taken from a poster at High Voltage Online, Samuel X regarding the multiplayer component of Grand Theft Auto IV:
>> and no, multiplayer isn’t a solution. It’s fun for awhile until you realize exactly what it is, GTA online. which means it’s sloppy, unstructured, pointless(lol at rankings meaning nothing)and 99% of the time you’ll be playing with/against some retarded kids who’d rather run around aimlessly before killing themselves with a rocket launcher than actually try to complete the objectives.
It certainly has that heart for having a sophisticated world, a brilliant artistic design… but those things aren’t why players play, or keep playing rather. They are fleeting moments, and rely on proper game design, scenario design, controls… they rely on these supposedly “soulless” things to get the job done. A great game doesn’t hinge on experience, it hinges on proper mechanics and features and everything the player physically controls.
For now, I side with Stephen, because his point by and large seems to ask Rockstar to actually look at their formula and try to identify what was lost, truly examine their game. Rather than come back later with downloadable content, which seems like a very uncomfortable trip down memory lane regarding the 90s world of PC Games versus Console Games, and the subject of patching that will seem like new ground to today’s video gaming generation.
Most folks spent money on Grand Theft Auto IV for a complete game, to talk about meta content on a fractured base, especially one that excludes the PS3, seems completely un-relatable. Most players, when they get down to the bare bones of the experience, feel that it’s the base that needs fixing in Grand Theft Auto IV. I’m filled with dread at the prospect of Rockstar adding more content to a narrative world that, as a player, I can’t relate to when the story is over.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Smart money’s on Tolito here, I think. I’m a sucker for dreamy big-idea thoughts like N’Gai’s, but it basically concedes the point that GTA IV is missing something, many things, that would need to be patched by DLC. And I can’t think of one example of DLC delivering at the scale required to make up for the shortcomings of GTA IV. The only thing close is the Crackdown update, ironic considering David Jones’ roots in GTA, but it was a patchwork set of new features.
I wish I could remember the source, but I read somewhere on the nets the suggestion that Rockstar license Liberty City to other developers. The world is an incredible achievement that the gameplay barely makes use of. Damn, a real-estate-mogul game in that world would kick some ass.
June 17th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
I really am enjoying GTA4, but the more I play it, the more excited I get for APB. What is more openworld than an MMO? I want a game where I can do all the crazy stuff GTA has always been about, but with other people. GTA4’s multiplayer was interesting, but it didn’t give me enough of a reason to continue playing. I hope that the persistence and teamwork that is going to be a big part of APB can deliver that experience.
June 19th, 2008 at 3:00 am
dear sir,
i want to download the sanandreas mode pack .