MTV News' Stephen Totilo Vs. Level Up's N'Gai Croal Vs. Their Readers on Grand Theft Auto IV. Final Round--Fight!

re: MTV News' Stephen Totilo Vs. Level Up's N'Gai Croal Vs. Their Readers on Grand Theft Auto IV. Final Round--Fight!

onepoker — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:48:07 GMT

We do not have freedom in this game because we cannot choose to be good. I like being the hero in games not the villain I want to save the world not destroy it. Now I am not opposed to having the freedom to be rotten. But what choice are we really making here? We wander around a large city with only two possible outcomes. I understand development limitations but wouldn't it be great to walk into this city knowing my choices will influence my final destination and experience.

re: MTV News' Stephen Totilo Vs. Level Up's N'Gai Croal Vs. Their Readers on Grand Theft Auto IV. Final Round--Fight!

leifeng — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:56:25 GMT

Hi N'Gai,

Great discussion as always. Having read your responses to my earlier posting about additional (non-violent?) means of conflict resolution. I think I actually have to agree with Mr. Totilo, particularly in regards to the "fun" (or lack thereof) inherent in such gameplay options. I have to admit, the first time I chose to simply let the guy go rather than kill him was pretty exhilarating, as was the first time I chose a non-lethal leg shot to intimidate some targets on that early mission with Dimitri, but that doesn't mean these are necessarily compelling gameplay options over time. I was actually pretty excited the first time a mission introduced the subway, or when I hailed a cab to get home from the bar. But I never actually did these things again, becuase it's more fun (convenient?) to just steal cars, even though it creates a kind of rift between the storyline (underground criminal) and the emergent gameplay narrative (joyriding sociopath). Again, I'm reminded of Shenmue--the gameplay was much more realistic, and as such was (realisticly) quite boring.

In this debate, I think I've been pretty much onN'Gai's side, in the sense that I think the grander ambitions of GTA IV's narrative are exceedingly worthwhile and the only reason we are having this "uncanny valley" problem is that Rockstar has done such a good job in creating its characters. I really do believe that games are capable of generating worthwhile thoughts and feelings in their players, and I believe they can do so with characters, dialogue, scenario scripting, etc that don't run counter to their basic gameplay design.

But maybe GTA should just be GTA-- a big sandbox with a skeletal, goofy narrative that teaches you how to play in the sandbox. I feel like I was being a bit contrarian in my earlier criticisms of GTAIV, complaining that the gameplay didn't fit the narrative-- GTA *is* the gameplay, so maybe it is the narrative that doesn't fit. Perhaps there are other games out there whose gameplay and narrative are just more functional together (MGS?).

Either way, a great discussion as always.

P.S. Perhaps I played one too many JRPGs in my youth, but am I the only gamer who isn't as thrilled about sandbox games, and "emergent gameplay" narratives, precisely becuase they interfere with the stories the games' creators are trying to tell? I love that gamers have the ability to tell and create their own stories in today's games, but that doesn't mean it's the only way. While I'm hesitant to make a film-based analogy, the emergent gameplay mentality almost seems like the youtube-ification of gaming narrative. While it's great that youtube gives me access to millions of films, videos, and stories (including my own, and screencaptures of other gamers' emergent gameplay), this doesn't mean I no longer go to the movies. While freedom in games is great, sometimes I like to place my entertainment in the hands of an expert (again, Kojima/MGS), rather than rely on myself....

re: MTV News' Stephen Totilo Vs. Level Up's N'Gai Croal Vs. Their Readers on Grand Theft Auto IV. Final Round--Fight!

Corrosion — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:42:13 GMT

What's going on, N'Gai? I saw leifeng/Zach's reply over at Multiplayer, and I felt compelled to do the same. First of all, excellent discussion between the both of you.

I have been beating the horse to death as far as how I felt Stephen was more in line with what the topic of debate was all about, There are interesting little side threads that I want to give a tug at that you and your readership present. I guess I'll start with a quoted excerpt from you in this very Final Round:

>> If Criterion Games creative director Alex Ward were here, he’d probably say, “Rockstar already made ‘Grand Theft Auto San Andreas.’ If you want to play it again, take it down from your gaming shelf and pop it into your PS3.” That’s what I’d say to you and Rohit, because you’re both dreaming kind of small.

If I had to pick a low point as far as the discussion goes, I'd say it's right here. I think you really ended up missing the point of what the "San Andreas fans" are saying. And I don't really like Grand Theft Auto like that. When I made my comparison to Street Fighter, the funny thing about it and what you say right up there? Capcom fans did just that.

Now, unlike Grand Theft Auto, which is a property that is so massive at the moment it will sell on its name alone, this action wrecked, as well as marked the beginning to a large pause in Capcom's fighting game efforts. Capcom pretty much tanked the series until now from the inside with what had happened with Street Fighter III. And given the kind of hardcore community they do have, one that isn't fickle and will dissect a game and understand it until only defined terms and understanding are left, I'd say that the lesson to be learned from this isn't what some would think. When an attempt at change fails, and that really is your intent over sales, it isn't time to backpedal. It's time to re-examine.

After that whole experience in the 90s and seeing how long it took before another resurgence in fighting games in Japan, saying "Play the older game" is such an empty, baseless comment to address concerns with a video game as exactly that. Players aren't here at the end of the day to experience narrative, that isn't what the game is about. That's not why players complained about Grand Theft Auto IV, at least in terms of the "narrative" provided to them. They were questioning the game that was given to them.

To call a game that invokes narrative and loses features an attempt at "evolution" is an insult to the medium, because it covets the appeal of other genres in favor of what we were all here for since this all began. Should movies seek to be more like video games? Should books seek to be more like movies? That's not progression. In fact, that's as much a call for progress as taking a look at a comment asking for GTA IV to be "more like San Andreas is" at face value.

Even with "industry cred" behind it.

Back to Capcom for a moment. Street Fighter IV is the safe route. It's the polar opposite to what Street Fighter III as a game was, and only time will tell how its judged. Whether it satisfies in its own way or just creates a cheap carbon copy of the old Super Street Fighter II Turbo experience and never gets beyond that shadow. That kind of pandering to profit is on the same coin as forgetting your roots. But business needs balance in the face idealism and profit, and I'm just a consumer in this regard.

Still, to get to the heart of that, it's exactly the kind of intent I see in your thoughts. A call for progress. You present a compelling argument about change, yet I feel unable to relate when you talk about establishing a fusion between games and narrative. It's always been there, albeit in a way that I imagine most players never really saw or appreciated.

I realize there are several pioneers and voices of praise for Metal Gear Solid 4, but I'm (probably obvious by now) not one of them. As a game, it doesn't fuse narrative and gameplay, and I can think of several games that actually do. Thief, System Shock, and Bioshock for instance. These games all have an important thread in common:

A passive narrative,

One that doesn't wretch control from the player, but allows them to be involved in a world with personalities and a story that doesn't want to shut out their input but let them further immerse themselves in the world. In choices and interactions. It's been done and done well. Metal Gear Solid 4 fuses gameplay and narrative the same way flames can fuse a synthetic polymer and human flesh. It does so, but as painfully as possible.

Reminds me of an industry mogul I want to paraphrase here. Blizzard's VP for game design once said something to the effect of "'Game balance' is like a donut, with the very center being the hardcore players. If you design a game with only the hardcore audience in mind, then that's all you'll get." David Sirlin used this comparison in his interview at Gamercyde (much better than I, at that, but I digress on my theft of thoughts), and I feel it's similar to what you're asking for with all these "narrative choices" and games built around narrative.

There are so many more fish in the gaming sea, so many more routes, so much more potential... than to herald one road as "progress." Especially one not about choice, but about someone else's words. Someone's script that was fleshed out in this medium because they didn't have the heart to pursue another.

Not to say that you've ever said it implicitly, but the players who ask for games to have more narrative really do miss the heart of what video games are eventually about. Narrative, characters, story... those are the little things that make the experience of a great game that much better. Scenario isn't the only method a game needs to involve the player. It's just another toy in the sandbox as it were.

Something we could learn from Grand Theft Auto, as it were. There's something for everyone.

Rockstar should not cater only to their hardcore fanbase, but they should take heed to the criticism present. Like any creative person or body. You need to listen to every criticism you get, even if the person giving it is merely trying to be full of spite and snark. If it so happens their voice isn't worth hearing after some thought, then there you are. Moreover, I think they do need to embrace their own franchise's identity and what they've created so far. If people come to a franchise expecting one thing, and you're just using its name as a cheap springboard for a few new features and what is inevitable the same experience or something familiar enough to seem like a cheap cash-in, perhaps its time to either concentrate your efforts...

Or make a new game.

------------------

Again, excellent discussion between the both of you. Hopefully the community out there who do read these blogs take note that discussion CAN be civil.

re: MTV News' Stephen Totilo Vs. Level Up's N'Gai Croal Vs. Their Readers on Grand Theft Auto IV. Final Round--Fight!

InfinityDevil — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:52:21 GMT

I should have also noted in my comment about wanting to look away from the mob boss is that Niko DOES shy away from him as he struggles in that scene, he seems to not want to look at him. Now I could have been projecting, but that's what I saw and felt.

re: MTV News' Stephen Totilo Vs. Level Up's N'Gai Croal Vs. Their Readers on Grand Theft Auto IV. Final Round--Fight!

onepoker — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:42:44 GMT

corrosion- I think your on too something with your comment. Gaming at its core is about virtual experience when someone pines for something from the past they are saying they aren't getting the same feeling from this new game as they did from the old one. It doesn't mean game companies should re hash the old games it means they should pay attention to why we were so enamoured by them in the first place. for example the early mech warrior game Crescent Hawks inception provided the first interactive role playing experience for me. I loved building my mechs and playing the stock market and battling in the arena. Then it seemed the games took a turn as giant robot simulators and I just lost interest. Its fun to drive a robot but its not the same adventure. The people looking for san andreas are looking for the character building aspect because that is the experience that excites them building a character is more fun than completing a mission for some people.

If there is anyone here old enough to remember Star Command I am still waiting for a modern game to even come close the fun I had playing that game. Mass effect was close but a little too slow.

re: MTV News' Stephen Totilo Vs. Level Up's N'Gai Croal Vs. Their Readers on Grand Theft Auto IV. Final Round--Fight!

Corrosion — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:09:28 GMT

@ onepoker:

Are you talking about the RTS or that old Amiga game? I keep thinking of this game I played as a kid where you managed your character's food and money. It was a crude sort of pixel based adventure, I kept getting mugged by space bandits and it was so open-ended, I didn't quite grasp the gameplay at the time. Was quite young, if that is indeed the Star Command you're talking about. I don't think it is.

re: MTV News' Stephen Totilo Vs. Level Up's N'Gai Croal Vs. Their Readers on Grand Theft Auto IV. Final Round--Fight!

onepoker — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 21:04:44 GMT

I dont know if it came out on Amiga it was a strategic simulation game. The basic premis was you were captain of a ship and you fly around the galaxy engaging enemies. When you boarded an enemy ship your characters were represented by Letters on a map the sound effects where great for a pc speaker but it was basically turned based letters battling each other with a great selection of weaponry. including a panzjaeger rocket that fired 4 times and obliterated everyone. the ship itself was equiped with everything from lasers to nuclear missiles. and you could buy a turret defense gun that shot down incoming enemy missiles.

http://www.the-underdogs.info/game.php?id=1040

here is a link to a description of the game with pictures of box art. This Game Rocked. If I ever end up gaining a controlling interest in a video game company Im getting the rights to this and remaking it.

re: MTV News' Stephen Totilo Vs. Level Up's N'Gai Croal Vs. Their Readers on Grand Theft Auto IV. Final Round--Fight!

onepoker — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 21:12:50 GMT

This is a table of hand held weapons available in star command I know its off topic but this is how good the game was in 1988!!!!

This doesnt include your ship weapons!

My star captain would kick Nikos ass! :) ahh the good ole days. By the way the weapons were listed in the manual so you could examine them at length while away from your computer.

MAX WEIGHT DAMAGE RELOAD RELOAD HIT WEAPON INTIM. WEAPON

NAME DAMAGE ROF AMMO (KG) RANGE TYPE WEIGHT COST BONUS COST FACTOR TYPE

5.56mm Palm Gun 8 2 8 .4 20 1 .4 4 -10 20 0 2

11mm Wrist Gun 15 2 2 .3 10 1 .1 5 -20 20 0 2

9mm Revolver 12 2 6 1.0 50 1 .2 1 0 299 1 2

9mm Automatic 12 2 8 1.0 50 1 .3 5 0 338 1 2

12mm Automatic 14 2 7 1.3 50 1 .3 6 -5 282 1 2

11mm 'Automag' 15 2 8 1.5 75 1 .3 7 0 516 2 2

5.56mm MiniMAC SMG 10 7 50 2.5 100 1 2.6 10 0 1279 2 2

9mm MAC-10 SMG 11 5 30 3.5 90 1 .9 10 0 898 3 2

11 mm 'Lead Hose' SMG 12 6 30 4.0 90 1 1.3 11 5 1084 3 2

5.56mm streetsweeper SMG 10 8 100 5.3 100 1 5.1 35 10 2433 4 2

5.56mm Assault Rifle 13 4 30 5.5 205 1 1.5 16 0 1218 6 2

7.62mm Assault Rifle 15 3 20 6.3 210 1 .4 15 0 1130 7 2

7.62/20mm AR/Grnd Lnchr 20 3 20 7.3 210 1 10.9 55 0 1577 8 2

12ga 'Skugmaster' Riot Gun 22 2 5 4.5 100 2 1.1 8 -5 1125 5 2

12ga Automatic Shotgun 18 2 5 5.3 50 2 1.1 3 20 973 4 2

10ga. Rotary Mag. Shotgun 21 2 5 6.0 75 2 1.4 13 20 1440 8 2

1mm Slivergun 10 12 250 1.3 30 3 .3 8 5 5370 0 2

2mm Needler 14 10 220 1.8 100 3 .9 9 5 5434 1 2

2.5mm Gauss Rifle 16 10 200 3.3 200 3 1.2 14 10 5861 2 2

40KV Taser 18 1 20 2.5 10 4 .5 20 0 570 0 2

1.1 MV Taser 27 1 15 3.0 10 4 .5 40 0 1333 1 2

40GHz EMP Gun 12 1 5 8.0 250 4 .2 75 5 677 5 2

TWT Amplified EMP Gun 18 1 4 11.0 250 4 1.5 90 5 740 5 2

2-Coil Ion Gun 15 3 25 5.5 15 5 .3 50 10 959 2 2

3-Coil Ion Gun 25 3 12 7.5 20 5 .3 50 10 2709 2 2

5-Coil Ion Gun 30 3 8 9.3 215 5 .3 50 10 5520 3 2

Incendiary Grenade 30 1 1 .2 50 11 .2 83 -5 83 2 2

.458 Magnum Rifle 18 2 5 6.5 220 1 .8 10 10 1093 4 1

.600 Nitro Express 20 2 2 6.0 210 1 .5 3 5 1149 4 1

7.62mm 'Puff Pack" Minigun 15 9 250 18.5 220 1 5.3 113 10 6276 10 1

12.5mm Long Barrel MG 25 4 50 12.0 225 1 2.8 155 15 4760 9 1

20mm Flame Thrower 20 1 12 6.0 30 6 3.0 35 30 1160 6 1

25mm Flame Thrower 25 1 10 6.5 30 6 3.0 35 30 1571 6 1

'Supernova' Flame Gun 30 1 8 8.3 40 6 4.5 75 45 2645 7 1

6mm Microjet Rocket Gun 16 2 12 5.5 150 7 1.2 18 0 788 6 1

10 mm Rocket Rifle 19 2 10 5.8 180 7 1.5 18 10 1276 7 1

Zero-G Assault RL 22 3 20 4.3 75 7 2.0 30 5 2071 7 1

20mm Auto Rocket Rifle 25 1 15 8.2 200 7 3.5 38 25 1907 8 1

40mm 'Panzerjaeger' RL 30 4 12 9.2 210 7 2.5 41 35 7786 9 1

LAWS Anti-armor Rocket 35 1 4 3.0 205 7 3.0 850 10 3771 10 1

HAAWS Heavy Rocket 43 1 4 5.0 210 7 5.0 1200 15 7638 10 1

1MW Laser Carbine 15 4 100 3.5 210 12 2.0 40 10 3035 6 1

1.5MW Laser Rifle 18 3 100 4.3 210 12 2.5 60 15 3335 6 1

2MW Laser Assult Rifle 20 3 56 4.8 215 12 2.5 60 20 2765 6 1

Freq. Agile Sniping Laser 24 2 40 4.0 225 12 3.1 50 30 3115 4 1

Delta-1 Compression Laser 27 2 30 5.3 100 12 3.7 100 5 2986 7 1

Delta-2 Compression Laser 32 2 30 5.8 150 12 4.0 225 0 5038 7 1

Nerve Gas Canister 38 1 1 .3 75 8 .3 209 25 209 0 3

Caustic Mist Bomb 43 1 1 .2 70 8 .2 343 40 343 1 3

Fragmentation Grenade 25 1 1 .4 60 9 .4 40 10 40 1 4

Enhanced Splinter Grenade 40 1 1 .5 50 9 .5 258 15 258 2 4

Concussion Grenade 20 1 1 .3 75 9 .3 18 25 18 2 4

1500 Microton Nuclear Grenade 60 1 1 .5 40 10 .5 1299 50 1299 3 4

Neutron Grenade 50 1 1 .1 80 10 .1 625 50 625 0 4

re: MTV News' Stephen Totilo Vs. Level Up's N'Gai Croal Vs. Their Readers on Grand Theft Auto IV. Final Round--Fight!

kern2000 — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:21:01 GMT

I was reading N'Gai's comments to the "3rd option to walk away" deal, and could not stop but think about the similar situation where you have the option to kill one or the other brothers sitting and talking on the bench. Please tell me you tried this before successfully completing the mission one way or the other, but what about the option of killing both? If the world doesn't turn against you for killing one or the other, it certainly won't be the end of the world if you kill both.

I certainly tried this, but failed with a message that said I had to pick one, not both. Rockstar clearly acknowledged and prepared for this situation, but didn't approve of it as an answer.

This, to me, was very disappointing.

re: MTV News' Stephen Totilo Vs. Level Up's N'Gai Croal Vs. Their Readers on Grand Theft Auto IV. Final Round--Fight!

funkyj — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 01:30:36 GMT

By the end of GTA IV I was sick of the "fun" of killing people. Not because I'm against violence or any crap like that, but it was just the same old same old. And to get that ending after choosing not to kill someone I saw as a complete cop out.

When the entire game consists of one mechanic, no matter how fun that mechanic is, after 60 hours having something to break it up is necessary.

I was expecting satisfaction because of the way the game developed Nico as a character, but the ending was boring and predictable. They kept making Nico say he was over the killing, but the final mission, no matter what you decide to do or how you play, is all about killing.

They build up all this emotional investment in the characters, but it's a fruitless waste because you know what is going to happen when you get to the Wedding.

Maybe that's Rockstar's point, but I guess this comes back to your grind discussion. I grinded through the last missions of GTA just to get two endings, neither of which left me satisfied.

re: MTV News' Stephen Totilo Vs. Level Up's N'Gai Croal Vs. Their Readers on Grand Theft Auto IV. Final Round--Fight!

Ginger Yellow — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:22:11 GMT

"Siding with one crime faction or another would be another way to unlock different missions/stories depending on how the player chose to play. "

They already did that in GTA 2, so it's not like they don't know how to do it.

re: MTV News' Stephen Totilo Vs. Level Up's N'Gai Croal Vs. Their Readers on Grand Theft Auto IV. Final Round--Fight!

Etchasketchist — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:46:55 GMT

GTA IV is the correct way to go. GTA III has been cloned and mutated into Crackdown and Saint's Row. Let them do all the wacky mayhem stuff. GTA V should be just like GTA IV but with a bigger city and more variety in the missions. I didn't mind the fact that you couldn't go stealth or non-violent. But too many missions were variations on the "go to a place, shoot a bunch of doods, chase the one that gets away, shoot him." All my favorite missions were the ones that veered from that formula. Also, they need to add more puzzle solving/detective work. Too often the little subtitles would tell you what to do and ruin the fun of figuring stuff out. How 'bout a mission where your target doesn't magically pop up on the GPS and you have to go around and talk to people to find out where he hangs out and what he looks like. Stuff like that.

re: MTV News' Stephen Totilo Vs. Level Up's N'Gai Croal Vs. Their Readers on Grand Theft Auto IV. Final Round--Fight!

onepoker — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:30:18 GMT

Does anyone know a blog where actual game developers fight it out?

re: MTV News' Stephen Totilo Vs. Level Up's N'Gai Croal Vs. Their Readers on Grand Theft Auto IV. Final Round--Fight!

Jesse Bramhall — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 07:29:18 GMT

Yay! A game journalist that can actually..... WRITE! Yay!