Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

The Identity Crisis: The Problems with V's story.

678 replies to this topic
mastershake616
  • mastershake616

    The Wolf of BAWSAQ

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2013

#361

Posted 13 November 2013 - 02:12 AM

 

 

 

 


 

 

You're an idiot because you don't understand that the term takes on different meaning from medium to medium. Gaming is unlike any other, because you're in control of the story. You're writing the book. 

 

"In media..." is a gross overgeneralization that only tells me that your artistic disposition is narrow-minded and biased; you see all as one, and that's your biggest mistake. A movie is not the same as a video game. A book is not the same as a movie. 

 

If you put a book down for two weeks, the story isn't halted. It's still there, on paper. If you rewind a film, the events aren't occurring backwards. When you f*ck around in free mode or turn a game off, the story has been halted. The things that happen aren't going to happen unless you initiate the events. And if said events are to be initiated, how you go about completing the events and the rate in which you do them is up to you, not scripted in any particular way.

 

You cannot change the way the Godfather is told. You cannot manipulate the events of the story. You can't kill Holden at the end of Catcher in the Rye. If I rewind the latest episode of SVU on my DVR, the detectives aren't solving a case and then releasing the suspect to go rape again. 

 

If I let Michael get shot in the head in the first mission and never return to the game again, that's that. Michael's dead and that's how the story ends. This shouldn't be news to YOU, an outspoken proponent of, uh, "experience." You felt dirty after killing one of the McCreary brothers, no? Some don't feel that way; some don't care at all; some killed Derrick so that they may reap the benefits of using Francis to clear wanted levels. The time that it takes one to finish a game, a mission, or whatever the f*ck it may be is as subjective as the reactions they have to the events of the story. 

 

 

Let me put it this way: If i turned the Godfather off after Vito got shot, I would be laughed out of any movie discussion for saying "When Vito was shot and died." 

 

 

You're an idiot because you don't understand that the term takes on different meaning from medium to medium. Gaming is unlike any other, because you're in control of the story. You're writing the book. 

 

Reading is key. 

 

 

 Maybe in the future your desire for a videogame where we decide how the story goes will be possible, but it isn't right now. 

 

You've gotta be kidding me. Any shred of credibility you may have had (personally, I've yet to discover one) disappears with another one of your moronic misfires. You even mentioned Metroid in your argument-- the f*cking game that gave birth to the concept of sequence breaking and experiencing the story in an entirely unique perspective. The last two GTA titles have given the player the power of choice several times throughout the story. 

 

You write your own story; the fate is in the hands of the player. What happens next has to unlocked, earned. If you don't have the skill or the will to advance, that's where YOUR story comes to an end. This applies to games, and, I dunno, those f*cking "Choose Your Own Adventure" books? 

 

Learn how to properly articulate your points, numbnuts. Suddenly your "overly" long take isn't looking so bad...

 

 

 

 

But a video game has canon too..... sure you are interacting with the video game, but arnt you interacting with the book by turning its pages?

 

 

Are you re-writing those pages? Do you get to cross out parts you don't like and replace them with your own idea of what fits there? No. It's there for you to experience or not. This is why the question, "Are video games art?" is widely debated. 


spamtackey
  • spamtackey

    Business Socks

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2013

#362

Posted 13 November 2013 - 02:19 AM

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

You're an idiot because you don't understand that the term takes on different meaning from medium to medium. Gaming is unlike any other, because you're in control of the story. You're writing the book. 

 

"In media..." is a gross overgeneralization that only tells me that your artistic disposition is narrow-minded and biased; you see all as one, and that's your biggest mistake. A movie is not the same as a video game. A book is not the same as a movie. 

 

If you put a book down for two weeks, the story isn't halted. It's still there, on paper. If you rewind a film, the events aren't occurring backwards. When you f*ck around in free mode or turn a game off, the story has been halted. The things that happen aren't going to happen unless you initiate the events. And if said events are to be initiated, how you go about completing the events and the rate in which you do them is up to you, not scripted in any particular way.

 

You cannot change the way the Godfather is told. You cannot manipulate the events of the story. You can't kill Holden at the end of Catcher in the Rye. If I rewind the latest episode of SVU on my DVR, the detectives aren't solving a case and then releasing the suspect to go rape again. 

 

If I let Michael get shot in the head in the first mission and never return to the game again, that's that. Michael's dead and that's how the story ends. This shouldn't be news to YOU, an outspoken proponent of, uh, "experience." You felt dirty after killing one of the McCreary brothers, no? Some don't feel that way; some don't care at all; some killed Derrick so that they may reap the benefits of using Francis to clear wanted levels. The time that it takes one to finish a game, a mission, or whatever the f*ck it may be is as subjective as the reactions they have to the events of the story. 

 

 

Let me put it this way: If i turned the Godfather off after Vito got shot, I would be laughed out of any movie discussion for saying "When Vito was shot and died." 

 

 

You're an idiot because you don't understand that the term takes on different meaning from medium to medium. Gaming is unlike any other, because you're in control of the story. You're writing the book. 

 

Reading is key. 

 

 

 Maybe in the future your desire for a videogame where we decide how the story goes will be possible, but it isn't right now. 

 

You've gotta be kidding me. Any shred of credibility you may have had (personally, I've yet to discover one) disappears with another one of your moronic misfires. You even mentioned Metroid in your argument-- the f*cking game that gave birth to the concept of sequence breaking and experiencing the story in an entirely unique perspective. The last two GTA titles have given the player the power of choice several times throughout the story. 

 

You write your own story; the fate is in the hands of the player. What happens next has to unlocked, earned. If you don't have the skill or the will to advance, that's where YOUR story comes to an end. This applies to games, and, I dunno, those f*cking "Choose Your Own Adventure" books? 

 

Learn how to properly articulate your points, numbnuts. Suddenly your "overly" long take isn't looking so bad...

 

 

 

 

But a video game has canon too..... sure you are interacting with the video game, but arnt you interacting with the book by turning its pages?

 

 

Are you re-writing those pages? Do you get to cross out parts you don't like and replace them with your own idea of what fits there? No. It's there for you to experience or not. This is why the question, "Are video games art?" is widely debated. 

 

 

A challenge for you, to prove how ridiculous you are being:

 

Complete GTA IV without ever seeing Michelle/Karen. 

 

Rules:

 

1) You may record the game only on console or on a vanilla PC installation. Mods immediately disqualify it as it was not put there by the developer. You cannot cross out content in a book after all.

2) You must show every mission except the ones where Michelle/Karen shows up. The marker for any mission involving Michelle/Karen must be seen on the radar as you play. 

3) You may not skip cutscenes in order to claim she was not in the game. (you can't fast forward a movie and declare the story invalid)

4) You must reach the end credits. Heck, for giggles you must pick the Deal ending and see it to its conclusion. 

 

Can you do it? 


mastershake616
  • mastershake616

    The Wolf of BAWSAQ

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2013

#363

Posted 13 November 2013 - 02:25 AM

 

 

 

 

You're an idiot because you don't understand that the term takes on different meaning from medium to medium. Gaming is unlike any other, because you're in control of the story. You're writing the book. 

 

Reading is key. 

 

 

 Maybe in the future your desire for a videogame where we decide how the story goes will be possible, but it isn't right now. 

 

You've gotta be kidding me. Any shred of credibility you may have had (personally, I've yet to discover one) disappears with another one of your moronic misfires. You even mentioned Metroid in your argument-- the f*cking game that gave birth to the concept of sequence breaking and experiencing the story in an entirely unique perspective. The last two GTA titles have given the player the power of choice several times throughout the story. 

 

You write your own story; the fate is in the hands of the player. What happens next has to unlocked, earned. If you don't have the skill or the will to advance, that's where YOUR story comes to an end. This applies to games, and, I dunno, those f*cking "Choose Your Own Adventure" books? 

 

Learn how to properly articulate your points, numbnuts. Suddenly your "overly" long take isn't looking so bad...

 

 

We're not talking about "oh I can do what I want in the gameplay." The developer still has intentions and they still create the game intending for certain things to happen at certain moments. We can sequence break in Metroid but the developer doesn't design it to be a "Go where you want to find what you want" kind of game (maybe the first one but even then I assume they set things up to be found in a certain order). Usually, they make it so we search to find the tool they hid for us to find so we can open the next area. We can't find the key for Area 5 in Area 1 unless they place it there or unless we break way from what the game intends. It's akin to reading a book backwards and considering the final chapter to be chapter 1 in reality.  

 

There are games that let you choose the story but it's still not our story. I can't make Niko shoot Dimitri and have the end credits roll with a happily ever after ending. We're still on rails. We still meet Brucie at the same point in the story. We still have to go on a date with Michelle. Ending the game early and claiming it is canon is the same thing as ending a movie early and considering it canon. No matter what they have a beginning middle and end and it's still there waiting for you to come back to it once you gain the skill to get past whatever challenge is holding you off. You can't go into a story discussion about a game series and use your experience as the actual canon for the game. My storyline for GTA IV is not canon it's only a possible canon. If Rockstar validated the Revenge ending as canon I could say nothing about it. It's their story. I can't change their story. I can't change their game. I can't unlock the second island in Vice City or the other cities in San Andreas early. It's their choice when these things come into play and that has an element of pacing to it. 

 

"Oh Samus never killed a boss because I skipped it in my sequence break". No, in-canon she killed the boss. You broke the game and avoided the boss just like I can skip a chapter on the Godfather DVD if I don't want to watch a character die. It doesn't stop them from dying. Even in the choose your adventure books and visual novel games, which are based entirely around choice, we are still at the mercy of the writers and what they decide. A choice we make may have completely different consequences because the writer's interpretation of the choice is different. I played a horrible Visual Novel once where every choice I made the character ended up warping to some kind of depressing story until they lost every friend they had despite my attempting to keep the friends and look on the bright side. The writers had different ideas. These choices were positive when I picked them, things like taking the advice of a friend wishing me well, but the character would take that and turn it around in a way I didn't want to when I made the choice.

 

There will always be an interactive element to the game, but you're giving it more credit than it deserves. A lot of what you're saying can be done with games can be done in other mediums too. It's called Fan Fiction. Only instead of blowing small paragraphs and descriptions or small scenes in movies out of proportion to mean something that they didn't mean so you can ignore the story, you're using the gameplay of the game to ignore the story. 

 

 

If that's the case for you when you play games, then I pity your inability to create and re-create unique perspectives. No two individuals beat Super Mario Brothers (a pretty damn linear narrative) the same way; each person has their own tale. If I'm talking about how I went about beating Bowser, I can tell a story that I'm assured isn't going to be the same as anyone else's. When I talk about how Batman got the upper hand on Bane in The Dark Knight Rises, all I'm guaranteed is that the screenplay told and the cameras showed everyone the same battle. The means of him winning the final fight will always be the same, no matter how many angles I've taken in describing the fight. 

 

Do we all have the same goals in games? If we want to see the next screen, the ending, or unlock some type of a perk, then yeah, we're all trying to see the same thing -- the thing that the developers and/or writers have laid out there for us, but that doesn't mean we all have to go about doing it in the same way. The flexibility in gaming allows the gamer to decide the pace and set the blueprint. 

 

If you beat Super Metroid in an hour and a half, that doesn't make it a fast paced game. I can take 8 hours to play the same game and both of us will have very different opinions when Zebes is blown to hell. 


mastershake616
  • mastershake616

    The Wolf of BAWSAQ

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2013

#364

Posted 13 November 2013 - 02:32 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

You're an idiot because you don't understand that the term takes on different meaning from medium to medium. Gaming is unlike any other, because you're in control of the story. You're writing the book. 

 

"In media..." is a gross overgeneralization that only tells me that your artistic disposition is narrow-minded and biased; you see all as one, and that's your biggest mistake. A movie is not the same as a video game. A book is not the same as a movie. 

 

If you put a book down for two weeks, the story isn't halted. It's still there, on paper. If you rewind a film, the events aren't occurring backwards. When you f*ck around in free mode or turn a game off, the story has been halted. The things that happen aren't going to happen unless you initiate the events. And if said events are to be initiated, how you go about completing the events and the rate in which you do them is up to you, not scripted in any particular way.

 

You cannot change the way the Godfather is told. You cannot manipulate the events of the story. You can't kill Holden at the end of Catcher in the Rye. If I rewind the latest episode of SVU on my DVR, the detectives aren't solving a case and then releasing the suspect to go rape again. 

 

If I let Michael get shot in the head in the first mission and never return to the game again, that's that. Michael's dead and that's how the story ends. This shouldn't be news to YOU, an outspoken proponent of, uh, "experience." You felt dirty after killing one of the McCreary brothers, no? Some don't feel that way; some don't care at all; some killed Derrick so that they may reap the benefits of using Francis to clear wanted levels. The time that it takes one to finish a game, a mission, or whatever the f*ck it may be is as subjective as the reactions they have to the events of the story. 

 

 

Let me put it this way: If i turned the Godfather off after Vito got shot, I would be laughed out of any movie discussion for saying "When Vito was shot and died." 

 

 

You're an idiot because you don't understand that the term takes on different meaning from medium to medium. Gaming is unlike any other, because you're in control of the story. You're writing the book. 

 

Reading is key. 

 

 

 Maybe in the future your desire for a videogame where we decide how the story goes will be possible, but it isn't right now. 

 

You've gotta be kidding me. Any shred of credibility you may have had (personally, I've yet to discover one) disappears with another one of your moronic misfires. You even mentioned Metroid in your argument-- the f*cking game that gave birth to the concept of sequence breaking and experiencing the story in an entirely unique perspective. The last two GTA titles have given the player the power of choice several times throughout the story. 

 

You write your own story; the fate is in the hands of the player. What happens next has to unlocked, earned. If you don't have the skill or the will to advance, that's where YOUR story comes to an end. This applies to games, and, I dunno, those f*cking "Choose Your Own Adventure" books? 

 

Learn how to properly articulate your points, numbnuts. Suddenly your "overly" long take isn't looking so bad...

 

 

 

 

But a video game has canon too..... sure you are interacting with the video game, but arnt you interacting with the book by turning its pages?

 

 

Are you re-writing those pages? Do you get to cross out parts you don't like and replace them with your own idea of what fits there? No. It's there for you to experience or not. This is why the question, "Are video games art?" is widely debated. 

 

 

A challenge for you, to prove how ridiculous you are being:

 

Complete GTA IV without ever seeing Michelle/Karen. 

 

Rules:

 

1) You may record the game only on console or on a vanilla PC installation. Mods immediately disqualify it as it was not put there by the developer. You cannot cross out content in a book after all.

2) You must show every mission except the ones where Michelle/Karen shows up. The marker for any mission involving Michelle/Karen must be seen on the radar as you play. 

3) You may not skip cutscenes in order to claim she was not in the game. (you can't fast forward a movie and declare the story invalid)

4) You must reach the end credits. Heck, for giggles you must pick the Deal ending and see it to its conclusion. 

 

Can you do it? 

 

 

I can't do that, and at no point during this argument did I imply that I can do such a thing. But how about this: I date Michelle just one time (when you're required to), and when she tells me that she's working for the feds and takes the drugs away, I sure as hell won't give two sh*ts about that "twist" and I am absolutely justified in thinking that it was an unimportant, ham-fisted plot device that gives the protagonist all the more reason to shoot people in a hospital. 

 

Or, I could date her dozens of times and establish a relationship. I'm left to believe that they love each other, and when the twist occurs, I am affected by it. All of my efforts with Michelle have been squandered, and now I really would shoot people in a hospital if I were in Niko's never-ending series of deceitful relationships. 


spamtackey
  • spamtackey

    Business Socks

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2013

#365

Posted 13 November 2013 - 02:48 AM

 

 

 

If that's the case for you when you play games, then I pity your inability to create and re-create unique perspectives. No two individuals beat Super Mario Brothers (a pretty damn linear narrative) the same way; each person has their own tale. If I'm talking about how I went about beating Bowser, I can tell a story that I'm assured isn't going to be the same as anyone else's. When I talk about how Batman got the upper hand on Bane in The Dark Knight Rises, all I'm guaranteed is that the screenplay told and the cameras showed everyone the same battle. The means of him winning the final fight will always be the same, no matter how many angles I've taken in describing the fight. 

 

Do we all have the same goals in games? If we want to see the next screen, the ending, or unlock some type of a perk, then yeah, we're all trying to see the same thing -- the thing that the developers and/or writers have laid out there for us, but that doesn't mean we all have to go about doing it in the same way. The flexibility in gaming allows the gamer to decide the pace and set the blueprint. 

 

If you beat Super Metroid in an hour and a half, that doesn't make it a fast paced game. I can take 8 hours to play the same game and both of us will have very different opinions when Zebes is blown to hell. 

 

 

Yet every time you beat that game you beat bowser. I bet somewhere in the game script is an ending where Bowser fails and Mario receives a kiss from Princess Peach. In Super Mario Bros there are not unlimited ways to beat Bowser. You either A: Fireballed him. B: Dodged him and his attacks and got the Axe. C: Cheated. Which did you do? I've never seen anything different. Oh boy stepping on the third block from the right makes the fight COMPLETELY different. I'm sure subtle changes to Batman's footing in fights would make it so the movie no longer needs pacing. 

 

The player can determine how quickly they beat the game by rushing it or not, but the overall length isn't the same thing as pacing. It's also when the introduction of new weapons and elements and when new story elements come together. We're not talking only about the challenge of beating the game, however, but of experiencing the intended storyline in the intended way. If the Godfather was a game it wouldn't be about the film length but rather when events happen and in what order and after what kind of ordeal. Watching all the cutscenes and still rushing the gameplay on your first run what kind of experience are you likely to have? When does Vito get shot? When does Michael come back to New York? Instead of putting it in a strictly time-based sense it's a question of how much the developer intends to put between us and that. In GTA V we don't just rob the Union Depository, no they have the big North Yankton reveal between the two because they had a goal with the placement. They didn't just pick with a dart.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can't do that, and at no point during this argument did I imply that I can do such a thing. But how about this: I date Michelle just one time (when you're required to), and when she tells me that she's working for the feds and takes the drugs away, I sure as hell won't give two sh*ts about that "twist" and I am absolutely justified in thinking that it was an unimportant, ham-fisted plot device that gives the protagonist all the more reason to shoot people in a hospital. 

 

Or, I could date her dozens of times and establish a relationship. I'm left to believe that they love each other, and when the twist occurs, I am affected by it. All of my efforts with Michelle have been squandered, and now I really would shoot people in a hospital if I were in Niko's never-ending series of deceitful relationships. 

 

 

Then it isn't your story. As simple as that. 

 

Yes, you have had an experience with your description of dating Michelle, but so did that robber who turned himself in after watching The Passion of the Christ. You talk of the Bane fight in Dark Knight Rises, well I have one friend who hates the movie and hates Bane and I have several friends who loved the movie. I myself found it imperfect but good. However, watching it was not the same thing as watching The Dark Knight. It too is an experience. It's not interactive, but it's an experience. That's what you're talking about rather than pacing. 

 

Games, like movies, are constructed by artists. In my mind games are art, but others may disagree. Someone chose when we would meet Michelle and how many times we would meet her before she became optional. Someone chose how many missions it would take before she betrayed us in order to give us time to date her or not to date her. These things are all part of pacing the game. If you met her and were given the option to date her and one mission later she betrayed you it would be vastly different and the events would feel rushed. Especially to someone without the knowledge that it would happen. They might wonder what the whole point of dating her was.

 

"What if I don't do the mission for a while and just goof around in the world?" Who cares? I can pause a movie just as much as you can goof off in a game. It doesn't change the fact that someone chose when things would happen and in what order. 

  • NinjaWJ likes this

Erick132
  • Erick132

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Nov 2013

#366

Posted 13 November 2013 - 03:11 AM

I read most of your opinion but not all because I didn't have the time so, here we go. I have to disagree with most of your points. I think you completely missed the point of the characters. Travor isn't a just a pyschopath. Don't get me wrong, he's f*cking insane but I think Travor is one of the best characters Rockstar ever did. One problem I had in GTA IV is that Niko is very hypocritical because he says that he wants to get away from killings the hundreds of people but goes on to kill 1000+ people in the story. I love Travor because he knows he's crazy. He does have code though. Trust. He even says that at the end of the game when you call up Franklin and hang out with him. Unlike Michael, Travor knew where he was in life. He didn't try to pretend something he wasn't. Michael is a man who is a family man, drinks too much, and he has no idea what he has in life. He takes his own family for granted. Even though he has everything in life, he depressed because he was missing something. The robbing. The killing. He loved it, but didn't want to admit it. You can tell after every heist because he gets so pumped he's full of life. It's not until later in the game when he realizes that he's been taking everything for granted which is why he goes to be with his family again. Franklin is not even a gang member. He use to be, but later on in life, he realizes that he wants something more in life. He wants to be big. He never once says he wants to stay in the gang life or he didn't want to get away from the hood. He hates the hood. But even Franklin is hypocritical because even though he's not in hood committing crimes, he's out doing committing crimes, killing a few hundred people and robbing banks. He wants to get out of the hood but still he is killing a sh*t ton of people.

I think the story is perfect the way it is. It was the right length and didn't drag at all. My biggest problem with GTA IV is that the story drags... a lot. I still praise the game, but the mafia side story is really unnessassary. It drags the story too much. I love the grittiness of GTA IV. It gives it the maturity that it needed. But that wasn't really the point to GTA V. It was suppose to that gimmicky. GTA V wouldn't have worked as a gritty story line. The gritty it got was when Travor figured out that Brad was in Michael's grave and that scene where Michael is driving to his grave in North Yankton and all the memories start coming back to him was definitely one of the best scenes I have seen in a video game because it took quick turn and it turned very seriously very quick. I really didn't like Michael in the story until the last mission when you go up against the Merryweather and Travor stops talking and Michael goes check up on him. At that point, I thought Michael was a "good" guy again. All that being said, I wish they would've explored Franklin's background just a bit more. I felt that at one point, the story was just about Michael and Travor and not about all three characters. He was just left out of the game till the very end when he starts planning out what people should die to tie the lose ends. I do give you respect thought for writing all that out. You did a great job detailing everything.
  • Drunken Cowboy likes this

mastershake616
  • mastershake616

    The Wolf of BAWSAQ

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2013

#367

Posted 13 November 2013 - 03:50 AM

 

 

 

If that's the case for you when you play games, then I pity your inability to create and re-create unique perspectives. No two individuals beat Super Mario Brothers (a pretty damn linear narrative) the same way; each person has their own tale. If I'm talking about how I went about beating Bowser, I can tell a story that I'm assured isn't going to be the same as anyone else's. When I talk about how Batman got the upper hand on Bane in The Dark Knight Rises, all I'm guaranteed is that the screenplay told and the cameras showed everyone the same battle. The means of him winning the final fight will always be the same, no matter how many angles I've taken in describing the fight. 

 

Do we all have the same goals in games? If we want to see the next screen, the ending, or unlock some type of a perk, then yeah, we're all trying to see the same thing -- the thing that the developers and/or writers have laid out there for us, but that doesn't mean we all have to go about doing it in the same way. The flexibility in gaming allows the gamer to decide the pace and set the blueprint. 

 

If you beat Super Metroid in an hour and a half, that doesn't make it a fast paced game. I can take 8 hours to play the same game and both of us will have very different opinions when Zebes is blown to hell. 

 

 

Yet every time you beat that game you beat bowser. I bet somewhere in the game script is an ending where Bowser fails and Mario receives a kiss from Princess Peach. In Super Mario Bros there are not unlimited ways to beat Bowser. You either A: Fireballed him. B: Dodged him and his attacks and got the Axe. C: Cheated. Which did you do? I've never seen anything different. Oh boy stepping on the third block from the right makes the fight COMPLETELY different. I'm sure subtle changes to Batman's footing in fights would make it so the movie no longer needs pacing. 

 

The player can determine how quickly they beat the game by rushing it or not, but the overall length isn't the same thing as pacing. It's also when the introduction of new weapons and elements and when new story elements come together. We're not talking only about the challenge of beating the game, however, but of experiencing the intended storyline in the intended way. If the Godfather was a game it wouldn't be about the film length but rather when events happen and in what order and after what kind of ordeal. Watching all the cutscenes and still rushing the gameplay on your first run what kind of experience are you likely to have? When does Vito get shot? When does Michael come back to New York? Instead of putting it in a strictly time-based sense it's a question of how much the developer intends to put between us and that. In GTA V we don't just rob the Union Depository, no they have the big North Yankton reveal between the two because they had a goal with the placement. They didn't just pick with a dart.

 

 

 

 

 

I can't do that, and at no point during this argument did I imply that I can do such a thing. But how about this: I date Michelle just one time (when you're required to), and when she tells me that she's working for the feds and takes the drugs away, I sure as hell won't give two sh*ts about that "twist" and I am absolutely justified in thinking that it was an unimportant, ham-fisted plot device that gives the protagonist all the more reason to shoot people in a hospital. 

 

Or, I could date her dozens of times and establish a relationship. I'm left to believe that they love each other, and when the twist occurs, I am affected by it. All of my efforts with Michelle have been squandered, and now I really would shoot people in a hospital if I were in Niko's never-ending series of deceitful relationships. 

 

 

Then it isn't your story. As simple as that. 

 

Yes, you have had an experience with your description of dating Michelle, but so did that robber who turned himself in after watching The Passion of the Christ. You talk of the Bane fight in Dark Knight Rises, well I have one friend who hates the movie and hates Bane and I have several friends who loved the movie. I myself found it imperfect but good. However, watching it was not the same thing as watching The Dark Knight. It too is an experience. It's not interactive, but it's an experience. That's what you're talking about rather than pacing. 

 

Games, like movies, are constructed by artists. In my mind games are art, but others may disagree. Someone chose when we would meet Michelle and how many times we would meet her before she became optional. Someone chose how many missions it would take before she betrayed us in order to give us time to date her or not to date her. These things are all part of pacing the game. If you met her and were given the option to date her and one mission later she betrayed you it would be vastly different and the events would feel rushed. Especially to someone without the knowledge that it would happen. They might wonder what the whole point of dating her was.

 

"What if I don't do the mission for a while and just goof around in the world?" Who cares? I can pause a movie just as much as you can goof off in a game. It doesn't change the fact that someone chose when things would happen and in what order. 

 

 

Watch this: 

 

 

Then, give this a spin:

 

 

What can you change about the first clip? And no, we're not talking about hitting the pause button or turning off your computer, doofus. There's a very big difference between doing that and experiencing something the way that it's meant to be experienced. 

 

You can't change anything. You have no input, just an opinion. 

 

The second clip showcases my premise and puts yours to rest. You're watching the cutscenes; I'm playing the game. Not only do you have the option to see that chapter in the story from two different perspectives, but your input is absolutely vital to the events that occur. What happens in this scene is a result of everything you've done up to that point. Without unique PLAYER INPUT, there's no weight to these happenings.

 

You continue to oversimplify the things that I'm saying, and by doing so, you're missing the point entirely and retorting my points in a way that doesn't effectively drive home any of yours. Try again, rookie. 


mastershake616
  • mastershake616

    The Wolf of BAWSAQ

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2013

#368

Posted 13 November 2013 - 04:12 AM

Even the people who got paid to review the game agree with me. From IGN:

 

 

 

It tells a compelling, unpredictable, and provocative story without ever letting it get in the way of your own self-directed adventures through San Andreas.

 

That, too, is an opinion, so take it with a grain of salt, but don't start dubbing my highly-shared viewpoint as "ridiculous" before exiting your own thick skull. 


NinjaWJ
  • NinjaWJ

    Just trying to get by

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2008

#369

Posted 13 November 2013 - 04:15 AM

wow so much anger and hate going on

  • Drunken Cowboy likes this

spamtackey
  • spamtackey

    Business Socks

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2013

#370

Posted 13 November 2013 - 04:45 AM

 

 

 

Watch this: 

 

 

 

Then, give this a spin:

 

 

 

What can you change about the first clip? And no, we're not talking about hitting the pause button or turning off your computer, doofus. There's a very big difference between doing that and experiencing something the way that it's meant to be experienced. 

 

You can't change anything. You have no input, just an opinion. 

 

The second clip showcases my premise and puts yours to rest. You're watching the cutscenes; I'm playing the game. Not only do you have the option to see that chapter in the story from two different perspectives, but your input is absolutely vital to the events that occur. What happens in this scene is a result of everything you've done up to that point. Without unique PLAYER INPUT, there's no weight to these happenings.

 

You continue to oversimplify the things that I'm saying, and by doing so, you're missing the point entirely and retorting my points in a way that doesn't effectively drive home any of yours. Try again, rookie. 

 

 

I'm talking about the gameplay too. I'm saying that someone decides what a player can do and they decide to a degree when it happens. There are times when you can break it, but that's no different than writing fanfiction. There are ways to change it, but it doesn't change the story. Your experience playing the game is exactly what you're talking about in a conversation about pacing. 

 

The developer sets up events in a game to happen in an order. I don't get called by Lance in Vice City until after I fulfill certain requirements set by the developer. The above actually showcases exactly what I'm talking about and how what you are talking about is something completely different. The experience, not the pace, is set by the player. For an experience we choose, but we can't choose everything. Rockstar decided when this mission would occur in relation to the rest of the missionsWhat gameplay was in it. They could have decided to place us right in the graveyard as both characters, but they didn't. They chose to let the player experience two different things and it absolutely works. 

 

I had my own experience with the mission. Did you know it is very difficult and maybe impossible to escape the graveyard without killing the Chinese? I've tried it. It's fun to mess around and have a different experience. I like to ignore the gardener during the repo where Mike meets Franklin. I just jump over the fence and run along the right side because otherwise it fails me for getting caught. This kind of thing is completely unique to a videogame and something you are absolutely right in applauding.

 

But it's not pacing. The mission you linked above is full of pacing decisions. Trevor finds out after working for the FIB. After giving us time to see how he really, really wants Brad out of prison. It always happens after the player has a chance to see him talk with Lester about breaking Brad out, although I'm not sure if everyone sees that part or not. Another uncontrollable element: The Chinese. Our decisions had no part in them coming back. Rockstar decided when it would happen in relation to other story events, just like a storybook or a movie. Games are very unique in how they tell a story, which is why I consider GTA IV slow paced. It has more action in it than a slow-burning movie but it's a different medium. Look at the introductions to both GTA IV and GTA V.

 

GTA IV - A long cutscene introducing Niko on the boat. Drive Roman home. A long cutscene showing Niko's reaction to Roman's lies and giving us some of his history.

 

GTA V - Opens with us in the middle of a robbery. We blow our way into a vault. Blow doors open. Shoot cops. Lose control of our vehicle. It's extremely quick and action filled.

 

If we want to include what Rockstar calls mission #2 we have a cutscene (not sure how long it is in respect to either of the GTA IV ones, it might be equal length, and then we're riding cars at top speed through Los Santos and the mission ends with us taking Lamar home and being introduced to Franklin's house. 

 

In all of these missions we can change the experience. We can drive Roman around town and ignore how he doesn't want to show us the city. You can win or lose in that race with Lamar. You can stop and see the hidden Easter Egg in North Yankton or just blow through it as quickly as you want. But in the end, Rockstar still has a hand in it. We still have to follow what they want us to do at some point or we get locked off from the rest of the game. Our choices reflect our experience. Rockstar's choices reflect the games pace. IMO They go hand-in-hand. 

  • NinjaWJ and Mr. Sleepy like this

Drunken Cowboy
  • Drunken Cowboy

    A Young Filipino Boy Playing Hands-Free Catch-the-Quarter

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2013
  • United-States
  • Best Topic 2013 "The Identity Crisis: The Problems with V's story."

#371

Posted 13 November 2013 - 06:17 AM

wow so much anger and hate going on

 

f*cking internet... 

Everyone's got opinions but clearly mines is the only right one, GERD DERMNIT

  • Duxfever, ScottishHeist123 and nobum62 like this

SonOfLiberty
  • SonOfLiberty

    We're all looking for that special someone

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Member In An Official Group 2012

#372

Posted 13 November 2013 - 06:32 AM

 One problem I had in GTA IV is that Niko is very hypocritical because he says that he wants to get away from killings the hundreds of people but goes on to kill 1000+ people in the story.

 

Niko does what he can to survive. Put yourself in his shoes. If you had to deal with loan sharks, the Russian mafia, the government, the mob etc being up your ass would you kill if that's all you could do from being put 6ft under?

 

I've always believed Niko's experience in the war screwed him up psychologically. He doesn't care if he lives or dies, but wants to correct his wrongs and ironically the only way to do that is to kill in the cesspool known as LC.

 

Yes he's hypocritical, but he's not some bible salesman running around with an rpg.

  • nobum62 and Erick132 like this

theworldfamous
  • theworldfamous

    all your game are belong to I

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Sep 2011

#373

Posted 13 November 2013 - 09:22 AM

The story does suffer a bit from the high pace of developments, that can make it feel forced. Simple solution is to not run through the missions. I usually don't do more than one or two during a sessions and it's great. So, there could be a bit more padding in between the main plot missions, but hey.. you can't blame Rockstar.. IV had plenty of those and got criticized to hell for having too much tame missions. Now people are begging for a return to the more serious tone (another major critcism of IV)? Bitches, please.. 

 

I don't care how long or well worded your post is... all I see is kids mad because they imagined the game to be something, and then the game was something slightly different... OMG.. surprise!!! WWEEEEEH!! *throws toys. You all read a line in some preview, and your imaginations ran wild with it, and now you're mad you didn't get what you were 'promised'. The problem here isn't the game, but your overactive imagination and that you maybe want a videogame to be more to you than it can be? 

 

I keep reading these posts in hopes someone will actually form a well founded critique of the game, because there's plenty to criticize and discuss, but it all winds down to the same personal disappointments and pet peeves.. some just word them a bit better.. or just longer. I wanted this.. but I got that... now I'm mad. Well guess what, princess? Nobody gives a sh*t. 


NinjaWJ
  • NinjaWJ

    Just trying to get by

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2008

#374

Posted 13 November 2013 - 09:40 AM

The story does suffer a bit from the high pace of developments, that can make it feel forced. Simple solution is to not run through the missions. I usually don't do more than one or two during a sessions and it's great. So, there could be a bit more padding in between the main plot missions, but hey.. you can't blame Rockstar.. IV had plenty of those and got criticized to hell for having too much tame missions. Now people are begging for a return to the more serious tone (another major critcism of IV)? Bitches, please.. 

 

I don't care how long or well worded your post is... all I see is kids mad because they imagined the game to be something, and then the game was something slightly different... OMG.. surprise!!! WWEEEEEH!! *throws toys. You all read a line in some preview, and your imaginations ran wild with it, and now you're mad you didn't get what you were 'promised'. The problem here isn't the game, but your overactive imagination and that you maybe want a videogame to be more to you than it can be? 

 

I keep reading these posts in hopes someone will actually form a well founded critique of the game, because there's plenty to criticize and discuss, but it all winds down to the same personal disappointments and pet peeves.. some just word them a bit better.. or just longer. I wanted this.. but I got that... now I'm mad. Well guess what, princess? Nobody gives a sh*t. 

 

 

Actually, the post the OP wrote has been one of the msot developed critical GTAV posts on this forum.....


theworldfamous
  • theworldfamous

    all your game are belong to I

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Sep 2011

#375

Posted 13 November 2013 - 09:57 AM

 

The story does suffer a bit from the high pace of developments, that can make it feel forced. Simple solution is to not run through the missions. I usually don't do more than one or two during a sessions and it's great. So, there could be a bit more padding in between the main plot missions, but hey.. you can't blame Rockstar.. IV had plenty of those and got criticized to hell for having too much tame missions. Now people are begging for a return to the more serious tone (another major critcism of IV)? Bitches, please.. 

 

I don't care how long or well worded your post is... all I see is kids mad because they imagined the game to be something, and then the game was something slightly different... OMG.. surprise!!! WWEEEEEH!! *throws toys. You all read a line in some preview, and your imaginations ran wild with it, and now you're mad you didn't get what you were 'promised'. The problem here isn't the game, but your overactive imagination and that you maybe want a videogame to be more to you than it can be? 

 

I keep reading these posts in hopes someone will actually form a well founded critique of the game, because there's plenty to criticize and discuss, but it all winds down to the same personal disappointments and pet peeves.. some just word them a bit better.. or just longer. I wanted this.. but I got that... now I'm mad. Well guess what, princess? Nobody gives a sh*t. 

 

 

Actually, the post the OP wrote has been one of the msot developed critical GTAV posts on this forum.....

 

ergo my disappointment. He just has a smarter way of running down the same argument. It winds down to what he expected it to be, and what it wasn't... I mean, so what? I dont think it's particularly interesting to discuss personal expectations, especially when you base them on marketing fluff like previews. I base my judgement on what IS there and how well that combines into the overall experience. In that regard, V is head and shoulders above any other game.

 

Example: People criticize on Trevor's character. Completely ignoring the fact that Trevor HAS a character you get to like or dislike.. 99% of games barely manage a cardboard cutout cliche for characters you dont give a sh*t about. Yet you dislike this game for making you actively dislike a fictional character. For most here, that's a reason to hate the game.. for me that would be a reason to like it even more, even if I hated Trevor's guts (I don't). THAT's interesting and different.. if you don't like that, please go foil another russian nationalist nuclear plot. 

  • Cutter De Blanc likes this

SonOfLiberty
  • SonOfLiberty

    We're all looking for that special someone

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Member In An Official Group 2012

#376

Posted 13 November 2013 - 11:16 AM

I was just thinking, but does anyone else think GTA V's story would've been 10x better if Madrazo was the antagonist?

Of course the story would be altered considerably, but if they made him more ruthless and a snake like Dimitri that would be so much more interesting than this FIB sh*t.

I would much prefer a American/Mexican Cartel drug lord to be my enemy than a rich asshole and an FIB douchebag.
  • Duxfever, NinjaWJ, Official General and 3 others like this

Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#377

Posted 13 November 2013 - 02:14 PM Edited by Official General, 13 November 2013 - 08:01 PM.

The story does suffer a bit from the high pace of developments, that can make it feel forced. Simple solution is to not run through the missions. I usually don't do more than one or two during a sessions and it's great. So, there could be a bit more padding in between the main plot missions, but hey.. you can't blame Rockstar.. IV had plenty of those and got criticized to hell for having too much tame missions. Now people are begging for a return to the more serious tone (another major critcism of IV)? Bitches, please.. 

 

I don't care how long or well worded your post is... all I see is kids mad because they imagined the game to be something, and then the game was something slightly different... OMG.. surprise!!! WWEEEEEH!! *throws toys. You all read a line in some preview, and your imaginations ran wild with it, and now you're mad you didn't get what you were 'promised'. The problem here isn't the game, but your overactive imagination and that you maybe want a videogame to be more to you than it can be? 

 

I keep reading these posts in hopes someone will actually form a well founded critique of the game, because there's plenty to criticize and discuss, but it all winds down to the same personal disappointments and pet peeves.. some just word them a bit better.. or just longer. I wanted this.. but I got that... now I'm mad. Well guess what, princess? Nobody gives a sh*t. 

 

@ theworldfamous

 

It's a shame you see it that way. There have been many well-thought out, detailed and thorough critiques on GTA V that have been posted so far. Maybe you just have not seen them, or you chose not to bother reading them. I've got a few issues with this post of yours though :

 

* I don't remember people criticizing GTA IV's missions for being to tame, and trust me, I initially criticized GTA IV a lot, long before GTA V came out. The main criticisms for IV's missions dished out on here were that a significant bunch of them were a bit repetitive and lacking in variety - a great deal of them were " go there and here, find and kill him/them missions", which was somewhat true, as a lot of them were of that kind. 

 

* From what I can see, no one on these forums is criticizing GTA V for not being 'serious' enough, I have not seen anyone say that here. Big-time heists for millions of dollars are as serious as crime can get, I'm pretty sure most of us on here would agree. The main criticisms directed on V on this forum are that it has a short single player campaign, a lack of decent side missions, a weak set of antagonists, and a not-so-great storyline. 

 

* You say that the problem for us V critics is that we have an "overactive imagination that we ran wild with", so therefor it's our fault that we are moaning about V not meeting our expectations. Right. So it's our fault that Rockstar hyped up this game to us with all their marketing and PR might (most ambitious GTA title to date remember ?), and that they clearly advertised certain features and content to be in the game or gave that impression, when it was not actually the case ??  Look at Franklin's Trailer :

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=vga-cqyrnAI

 

Now please tell me, was Franklin's main storyline anything like this ? No. We can all safely say that it was not, and that he spent most of the game in background, when he is supposed to be a protagonist, which was f**ked up. Is it our fault that Rockstar falsely advertised stuff like this in such a manner that our imaginations went wild ?? They boasted to us we could buy properties are back in the game, they spoke of an expansive and detailed economy system - they did not elaborate on what these features really entailed, but it was clearly designed to hype us up and get us excited, after all we are taking their word for it. What the f**k do you expect us to say ?? We're big GTA fans, of course we are gonna have overactive imaginations, especially when Rockstar claim that they are gonna do bigger and better things with the franchise. If you felt that Rockstar made their boasts and failed to fully deliver when you brought their product, then you as a customer, are entitled to moan and complain about it - not f**king lick the ground they walk on, praise and bow down to them at their every command. 

 

* Many complaints and criticisms I have seen about V on here for most part are very valid and reasonable. Pet peeves and personal disappointments, again what do you expect. What, so I should say, " I don't like certain things about GTA V, but it's pointless me saying discussing it because it's just my personal preferences, they are not important". What a pile of steaming bullsh*t. This is a forum, everyone's contribution of their views, critics and complaints will of course be from a personal perspective to be shared among others, I think you missed the concept of how it works. 

 

@ Son Of Liberty

 

 

I was just thinking, but does anyone else think GTA V's story would've been 10x better if Madrazo was the antagonist?

 
Of course the story would be altered considerably, but if they made him more ruthless and a snake like Dimitri that would be so much more interesting than this FIB sh*t.
 
I would much prefer a American/Mexican Cartel drug lord to be my enemy than a rich asshole and an FIB douchebag. 

 

I totally agree. I'd would have LOVED for the storyline in V to have had this as the main theme, hand-in-hand with the heists. I had always hoped that we were gonna see some real brutal Mexican drug cartel enemies like the real-life Los Zetas cartel. Madrazo was nothing like that at all. 

 

Exactly, why the f**k would a billionaire like Devin Weston even bring a ton of trouble and stress upon himself with common criminals, when he's living the most luxury, high-class, expensive lifestyle and existence ?? Just because he's rich and bored, no just too far-fetched. I won't even go into that ludicrous FIB stupidness. Makes no realistic sense to me. 

 

Dimitri was a brilliantly executed protagonist. You just don't understand how much I so badly wanted to kill that guy ! Steve Haines and Devin Weston ? I just wanted them to leave us alone to do our own heists, I did not care one bit about killing those guys, hence I chose to kill that dirty psycho. I would not have mattered to me weather they lived or not. 

  • NinjaWJ likes this

Tycek
  • Tycek

    Being a bastard works.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2009
  • Poland

#378

Posted 13 November 2013 - 02:40 PM

I believe the original story, which was Rush casting list indicating for would be much better than this half-assed one. Sure it still would have Haines and Davey there, but I believe we would get at least some normal antagonist worth fighting with.

  • NinjaWJ likes this

Journey_95
  • Journey_95

    Hustler

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2012
  • Germany

#379

Posted 13 November 2013 - 02:58 PM

I was just thinking, but does anyone else think GTA V's story would've been 10x better if Madrazo was the antagonist?

Of course the story would be altered considerably, but if they made him more ruthless and a snake like Dimitri that would be so much more interesting than this FIB sh*t.

I would much prefer a American/Mexican Cartel drug lord to be my enemy than a rich asshole and an FIB douchebag.

yeah man I agree very good idea indeed the antagonists in V were soo weak not menacing at all

I can't imagine that the same people wrote both two stories ( IV and V) it seems like two different levels of writing

Dmitri in comparison to Haines its so ridiculous thats its almost funny
 

  • NinjaWJ and hooma like this

Drunken Cowboy
  • Drunken Cowboy

    A Young Filipino Boy Playing Hands-Free Catch-the-Quarter

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2013
  • United-States
  • Best Topic 2013 "The Identity Crisis: The Problems with V's story."

#380

Posted 13 November 2013 - 07:14 PM

GTA VI should be modern-day Red Dead's New Austin. Think of the possibilities of a cartel-themed GTA game that spanned two countries. Maybe each region could see their own parts of the game, like Texas and Mexico in Red Dead, instead of 80% of GTA V taking place in Los Santos over Blaine County.

 

As much as I'd love a new Vice City, I'd push for a GTA: New Austin any day.


NinjaWJ
  • NinjaWJ

    Just trying to get by

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2008

#381

Posted 13 November 2013 - 08:00 PM

I thought Madrazo would be the main bad guy. He looked bloodthirsty and ruthless, a perfect antagonist! We would be working for him and then eventually working against him. After last years major events with Mexican cartels and the current issue with the Mexican drug wars , etc, Madrazo would have been the right antagonist. Then you never hear from again until later, and you realize he is actually a pussy


NinjaWJ
  • NinjaWJ

    Just trying to get by

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2008

#382

Posted 13 November 2013 - 08:01 PM

GTA VI should be modern-day Red Dead's New Austin. Think of the possibilities of a cartel-themed GTA game that spanned two countries. Maybe each region could see their own parts of the game, like Texas and Mexico in Red Dead, instead of 80% of GTA V taking place in Los Santos over Blaine County.

 

As much as I'd love a new Vice City, I'd push for a GTA: New Austin any day.

I was disappointed that there was nothing on the south side of GTAV's map.  Los Santos felt small because the surrounding areas were huge. LA is a highly metropolitan area so i am confused why Los Santos is so tiny


Erick132
  • Erick132

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Nov 2013

#383

Posted 13 November 2013 - 08:32 PM


 One problem I had in GTA IV is that Niko is very hypocritical because he says that he wants to get away from killings the hundreds of people but goes on to kill 1000+ people in the story.

 
Niko does what he can to survive. Put yourself in his shoes. If you had to deal with loan sharks, the Russian mafia, the government, the mob etc being up your ass would you kill if that's all you could do from being put 6ft under?
 
I've always believed Niko's experience in the war screwed him up psychologically. He doesn't care if he lives or dies, but wants to correct his wrongs and ironically the only way to do that is to kill in the cesspool known as LC.
 
Yes he's hypocritical, but he's not some bible salesman running around with an rpg.

NinjaWJ
  • NinjaWJ

    Just trying to get by

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2008

#384

Posted 13 November 2013 - 08:39 PM

^^ wow where did she get those fingerless gloves!!!!


PaletoChickenCapo
  • PaletoChickenCapo

    Neunundneunzig Luftballons

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Nov 2012
  • Norway

#385

Posted 13 November 2013 - 08:46 PM

^^ wow where did she get those fingerless gloves!!!!

Not in GTA IV.


PaletoChickenCapo
  • PaletoChickenCapo

    Neunundneunzig Luftballons

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Nov 2012
  • Norway

#386

Posted 13 November 2013 - 09:09 PM

-photo of the year-

Haha, welcome to GTAforums. You're my favorite-member here.

 

GTA VI should be modern-day Red Dead's New Austin. Think of the possibilities of a cartel-themed GTA game that spanned two countries. Maybe each region could see their own parts of the game, like Texas and Mexico in Red Dead, instead of 80% of GTA V taking place in Los Santos over Blaine County.

 

As much as I'd love a new Vice City, I'd push for a GTA: New Austin any day.

 

I love the RDR's map, and I think it would be awesome to see how those places have changed. Blackwater would probably be a big city.

 

The landscape would be pretty diverse too. Mexico with the red-soil desert, filled with a lot of towns, and a big city (Escalera).

 

West Elizabeth would have the woods, so we could go hunting, or maybe even skiing in the mountains. Blackwater would also be located here.

 

New Austin was mostly based on Texas, but also other places. This is from the RDR-wiki:

 

 

 

The terrain of New Austin resembles aspects of several real-life Southwestern U.S. states. Cholla Springsresembles Arizona's desert with its saguaro cactus, desert scrub, and prickly pears. The scrub desert of Rio Bravois strongly reminiscent of New Mexico. Gaptooth Ridge is more like Southern California and western Arizona with its tan rocks and Trees, and Hennigan's Stead is resembles the western parts of Kansas, Oklahoma, central Colorado, and the square part of Texas called the Panhandle Plains, with the Eastern end (Stillwater Creek) resembling theThe South comprising of North TexasEast Texas, and Louisiana.

SonOfLiberty
  • SonOfLiberty

    We're all looking for that special someone

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Member In An Official Group 2012

#387

Posted 14 November 2013 - 04:19 AM

 

I totally agree. I'd would have LOVED for the storyline in V to have had this as the main theme, hand-in-hand with the heists. I had always hoped that we were gonna see some real brutal Mexican drug cartel enemies like the real-life Los Zetas cartel. Madrazo was nothing like that at all. 

 

Exactly, why the f**k would a billionaire like Devin Weston even bring a ton of trouble and stress upon himself with common criminals, when he's living the most luxury, high-class, expensive lifestyle and existence ?? Just because he's rich and bored, no just too far-fetched. I won't even go into that ludicrous FIB stupidness. Makes no realistic sense to me. 

 

Dimitri was a brilliantly executed protagonist. You just don't understand how much I so badly wanted to kill that guy ! Steve Haines and Devin Weston ? I just wanted them to leave us alone to do our own heists, I did not care one bit about killing those guys, hence I chose to kill that dirty psycho. I would not have mattered to me weather they lived or not. 

 

 

It's amazing how much we think alike General. I had those exact feelings too.. Weston is arguably one of the most poorly executed antagonists in the series' history. As you said he's a billionaire so why would he ever bother getting involved with common criminals? I think Haines was trying to be a subtle throw back to Tenpenny by having a corrupt authority figure breathing down our necks, but the guy just came across as a douchebag more than a threat.

 

I've tried to let GTA V's story grow on me, but it still feels shaky. I'm on my 3rd save and right about in the middle when the FIB gets involved its whole criminal identity feels like it gets thrown out of the window. I miss dealing with different criminal organisations. There was potential with Madrazo, but that whole part was so brief it was a missed opportunity.

 

If I could alter GTA V's story I'd still keep the heists arc, but expand a few things like Trevor's dealings before he goes to LS, the Madrazo Cartel being much more prominent and Franklin's story being longer. Too much time is spent doing sh*t for the FIB which IMO isn't what a GTA game should be about.


dannyz
  • dannyz

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2010

#388

Posted 14 November 2013 - 09:13 AM

I totally agree. I'd would have LOVED for the storyline in V to have had this as the main theme, hand-in-hand with the heists. I had always hoped that we were gonna see some real brutal Mexican drug cartel enemies like the real-life Los Zetas cartel. Madrazo was nothing like that at all. 
 
Exactly, why the f**k would a billionaire like Devin Weston even bring a ton of trouble and stress upon himself with common criminals, when he's living the most luxury, high-class, expensive lifestyle and existence ?? Just because he's rich and bored, no just too far-fetched. I won't even go into that ludicrous FIB stupidness. Makes no realistic sense to me. 
 
Dimitri was a brilliantly executed protagonist. You just don't understand how much I so badly wanted to kill that guy ! Steve Haines and Devin Weston ? I just wanted them to leave us alone to do our own heists, I did not care one bit about killing those guys, hence I chose to kill that dirty psycho. I would not have mattered to me weather they lived or not.

 
It's amazing how much we think alike General. I had those exact feelings too.. Weston is arguably one of the most poorly executed antagonists in the series' history. As you said he's a billionaire so why would he ever bother getting involved with common criminals? I think Haines was trying to be a subtle throw back to Tenpenny by having a corrupt authority figure breathing down our necks, but the guy just came across as a douchebag more than a threat.
 
I've tried to let GTA V's story grow on me, but it still feels shaky. I'm on my 3rd save and right about in the middle when the FIB gets involved its whole criminal identity feels like it gets thrown out of the window. I miss dealing with different criminal organisations. There was potential with Madrazo, but that whole part was so brief it was a missed opportunity.
 
If I could alter GTA V's story I'd still keep the heists arc, but expand a few things like Trevor's dealings before he goes to LS, the Madrazo Cartel being much more prominent and Franklin's story being longer. Too much time is spent doing sh*t for the FIB which IMO isn't what a GTA game should be about.

Madrazo just seemed like a wasted character. We first meet him and he beats Michael then we don't hear from him for awhile but Michael still seems scared of him, Trevor kidnapps his wife then we give him that statue thing and his wife back and he is all fine with this.

If I could change the story I would have Madrazo be Michaels antagonist where he orders M around to do things for his cartel and watch over deals,

Trevor's story would have him not just become the main meth dealer in Blaine county after like two missions. His antagonist would be TLAD Johnny and not the meth head he would try to build TP inc. up but the Lost and Aztecas/O'neils would keep ambushing his business.

Franklins would have more hood missions and have an emotional struggle because he wants to do bigger and better things but has a hard time leaving his homies.

With the changes I made the TLAD fans,the Gangsta fans and the people who want less fib and more criminal underworld missions would be happy.

Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#389

Posted 14 November 2013 - 06:35 PM

@ Son of Liberty

 

 

If I could alter GTA V's story I'd still keep the heists arc, but expand a few things like Trevor's dealings before he goes to LS, the Madrazo Cartel being much more prominent and Franklin's story being longer. Too much time is spent doing sh*t for the FIB which IMO isn't what a GTA game should be about.

 

 

That's exactly what I would have done if I had the chance to alter GTA V's storyline. Look at the part where Michael is exiled from Los Santos because Madrazo has put a hit out on him for whenever he returns to LS, and a whole bunch of Mexican drug cartel gunmen hunt him down and try to kill at all times. I thought that was brilliant. Imagine there was more stuff like this regarding the cartels and Michael ? There was so much opportunities for a great storyline from this angle. Even Trevor's drug and arms trafficking beef with Aztecas could have been greatly expanded on - that mission was mad fun and very interesting too. All the good stuff just got overshadowed and dominated by that bullsh*t FIB story. 

 

@ danny

 

I agree with that bro, same here. 


Tycek
  • Tycek

    Being a bastard works.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2009
  • Poland

#390

Posted 14 November 2013 - 07:44 PM Edited by Tycek, 14 November 2013 - 07:45 PM.

I thought about one thing today while replaying the missions. In "Trevor Phillips Industries" Ortega's people are attacking the meth lab to repay Trevor for the lose of their kitchen (Ortega's trailer). What if Mandrazo would work with Aztecas, hoping for a nice deal with chinese or someone else and he would find out Trevor is messing with his business. Tracking Trevor would lead him to Michael (again), which would make Mandrazo losing his patience. Seriously this guy would be perfect for silent yet deadly antagonist trying to end your life for the rest of the game. 

 

In such case we could even keep the FIB mission arc with our trio dodging between being lapdogs for feds and dinner for Mandrazo counting that FIB will help them take mexican of their back only to be in fact ripped by both of the parties. 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users