GTAV voice actors include actual gangsters

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/09/04/real-gang-members-feature-as-voice-actors-in-gta-v

Rockstar went to actual gangbangers and asked them to provide insight and voice work for GTAV. Frankly I don't like this, I'm ok with actors playing criminals, but I am not ok with the entertainment industry giving money to actual criminal to act like themselves in front of a microphone.

Any thoughts on this?

Worked in The Wire so no problem from me.

Edit - Being a Gang member does not automaticly make you a criminal.

Totally agreed. 

Hiring real criminals to make a video game more authentic is fvcking STUPID.

Love this line from the interview:

"And we brought these guys in to record the gang characters because, you know, you don't want a goofy LA actor who went to a fancy school trying to be a hard gang member. There's nothing worse than that. So just go find the real, terrifying people and say, Can you come in here please? And they look at the lines and they say, I wouldnt say that. If I was upset at another gang, I wouldn't say that. So, well, then say what you would say. Authenticity, you know?

So it sounds like they may be using them as technical advisors more than actual actors, not that it matters much. The industry has done that for years if that's the case, just not with criminals. 

Still not cool, as far as I'm concerned. And honestly, would "real terrifying" people sit down and help some nerd from Rockstar make a video game? Can't imagine that's high on the list for street cred -- "I worked on GTA V" would probably get someone laughed at in that group more than anything.

 And honestly, would "real terrifying" people sit down and help some nerd from Rockstar make a video game? Can't imagine that's high on the list for street cred -- "I worked on GTA V" would probably get someone laughed at in that group more than anything.

Shame-usBlackley

I'd imagine they got paid for it and would working on GTA 5 really ruin your street cred - I'm not sold on that idea.

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

 And honestly, would "real terrifying" people sit down and help some nerd from Rockstar make a video game? Can't imagine that's high on the list for street cred -- "I worked on GTA V" would probably get someone laughed at in that group more than anything.

muffin200

I'd imagine they got paid for it and would working on GTA 5 really ruin your street cred - I'm not sold on that idea.

Well, I personally would find a gang member that worked on a video game significantly less terrifying and credible than one that engaged in more stereotypical gangster activities.

Nothing wrong with that tbh. If you're offended by Rockstar paying people to talk the way they normally do in a game that is about their culture, you're doing it wrong. You should start by being offended by the game's glorification of the "gangster" culture in the first place.

The problem here, if there is one (and there isn't), is that GTAV is a gangster story that shoots for a semi-realistic tone, not that they're seeking advice from people who actually live in that culture.

Personally, I'm very happy that a major game studio actually cares about writing good dialogue in an action game.

Nothing wrong with that tbh. If you're offended by Rockstar paying people to talk the way they normally do in a game that is about their culture, you're doing it wrong. You should start by being offended by the game's glorification of the "gangster" culture in the first place.

The problem here, if there is one (and there isn't), is that GTAV is a gangster story that shoots for a semi-realistic tone, not that they're seeking advice from people who actually live in that culture.

Personally, I'm very happy that a major game studio actually cares about writing good dialogue in an action game.

ReddestSkies

There are a TON of resources to draw from other than hiring gang members. That's a ridiculous argument.

And if you believe that being offended that part of the money you paid for a game is going to a criminal means that you can't be interested in the game's subject matter without also being offended, then you are simply wrong-headed. I loathed Ted Bundy and would never have wanted him to receive a dime for being a technical advisor on anything, but I loved  Thomas Harris' The Red Dragon and many other books like it. The two are not mutually exclusive. 

EDIT: to be clear, I'm not saying that creative works shouldn't strive for realism -- far from it. I'm saying that hiring real criminals crosses the line of good sense and common decency. Research the HELL out of the subject and then hire capable actors to bring it to life. But for fvck's sake, don't HIRE the research!

 

EDIT: to be clear, I'm not saying that creative works shouldn't strive for realism -- far from it. I'm saying that hiring real criminals crosses the line of good sense and common decency. Research the HELL out of the subject and then hire capable actors to bring it to life. But for fvck's sake, don't HIRE the research!

Shame-usBlackley

One problem with that is they did not hire criminals they hired gang member - Unless you belive everyone in a gang is by defult a criminal.

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

 

EDIT: to be clear, I'm not saying that creative works shouldn't strive for realism -- far from it. I'm saying that hiring real criminals crosses the line of good sense and common decency. Research the HELL out of the subject and then hire capable actors to bring it to life. But for fvck's sake, don't HIRE the research!

muffin200

One problem with that is they did not hire criminals they hired gang member - Unless you belive everyone in a gang is by defult a criminal.

I believe gang members are scumbags, but it was this line I was referring to:

"I mean, El Salvadorian gang dudes with amazing tattoos and one of which literally had gotten out of prison the day before."

[QUOTE="muffin200"]

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

 

EDIT: to be clear, I'm not saying that creative works shouldn't strive for realism -- far from it. I'm saying that hiring real criminals crosses the line of good sense and common decency. Research the HELL out of the subject and then hire capable actors to bring it to life. But for fvck's sake, don't HIRE the research!

Shame-usBlackley

One problem with that is they did not hire criminals they hired gang member - Unless you belive everyone in a gang is by defult a criminal.

I believe gang members are scumbags, but it was this line I was referring to:

"I mean, El Salvadorian gang dudes with amazing tattoos and one of which literally had gotten out of prison the day before."

So he did a crime , served his time and was released. That makes him an ex-criminal unless proven otherwise in a court of law.

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

[QUOTE="muffin200"]

 

One problem with that is they did not hire criminals they hired gang member - Unless you belive everyone in a gang is by defult a criminal.

muffin200

I believe gang members are scumbags, but it was this line I was referring to:

"I mean, El Salvadorian gang dudes with amazing tattoos and one of which literally had gotten out of prison the day before."

So he did a crime , served his time and was released. That makes him an ex-criminal unless proven otherwise in a court of law.

Ex-con, not ex-criminal. Besides, if he was released the day before, negotiations would have had to have taken place prior to his release, when he was still serving time for his crime(s). You stated they did not hire criminals, which they most certainly did. 

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

[QUOTE="muffin200"]

 

One problem with that is they did not hire criminals they hired gang member - Unless you belive everyone in a gang is by defult a criminal.

muffin200

I believe gang members are scumbags, but it was this line I was referring to:

"I mean, El Salvadorian gang dudes with amazing tattoos and one of which literally had gotten out of prison the day before."

So he did a crime , served his time and was released. That makes him an ex-criminal unless proven otherwise in a court of law.

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

EDIT: to be clear, I'm not saying that creative works shouldn't strive for realism -- far from it. I'm saying that hiring real criminals crosses the line of good sense and common decency. Research the HELL out of the subject and then hire capable actors to bring it to life. But for fvck's sake, don't HIRE the research!

muffin200

One problem with that is they did not hire criminals they hired gang member - Unless you belive everyone in a gang is by defult a criminal.

Gangs are criminal enterprises. I don't see how anyone not living under a rock could dispute that. I was stationed in Guatemala City for a couple years (Central America sees a ton of gang activity).

Once around Christmas a bunch of Honduran gang members close to San Pedro Sula (a hotbed of gang activity) decided to shoot a busload of woman and kids to convince the government to repeal a recently passed anti-gang law. Since they were clever, they didn't want to be linked to the killings, so they left a note claiming to be a rebel group which was disturbed by the new anti-gang law. There were two problems with their brilliant scheme. The first problem was that the rebel group was long defunct. The second problem was that some of the people on the bus they shot up lived and said 'It was gang members that shot us'.

There was another telling case in Guatemala City, Guatemala in which a man objected to his daughter (13 or 14) dating a gang member. So the gang member and a couple of his buddies came by the guy's apartment (he was at work at the time) and raped and murder the girl and her mother. IIRC they didn't rape the family's new baby, they just killed it.

Love this line from the interview:

"And we brought these guys in to record the gang characters because, you know, you don't want a goofy LA actor who went to a fancy school trying to be a hard gang member. There's nothing worse than that. So just go find the real, terrifying people and say, Can you come in here please? And they look at the lines and they say, I wouldnt say that. If I was upset at another gang, I wouldn't say that. So, well, then say what you would say. Authenticity, you know?

So it sounds like they may be using them as technical advisors more than actual actors, not that it matters much. The industry has done that for years if that's the case, just not with criminals.

Still not cool, as far as I'm concerned. And honestly, would "real terrifying" people sit down and help some nerd from Rockstar make a video game? Can't imagine that's high on the list for street cred -- "I worked on GTA V" would probably get someone laughed at in that group more than anything.

Shame-usBlackley

Gangbangers probably view GTA the same way football players view Madden.

[QUOTE="muffin200"]

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

I believe gang members are scumbags, but it was this line I was referring to:

"I mean, El Salvadorian gang dudes with amazing tattoos and one of which literally had gotten out of prison the day before."

firefox59

So he did a crime , served his time and was released. That makes him an ex-criminal unless proven otherwise in a court of law.

Don't buy it then.SolidSnake35

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

Nothing wrong with that tbh. If you're offended by Rockstar paying people to talk the way they normally do in a game that is about their culture, you're doing it wrong. You should start by being offended by the game's glorification of the "gangster" culture in the first place.

The problem here, if there is one (and there isn't), is that GTAV is a gangster story that shoots for a semi-realistic tone, not that they're seeking advice from people who actually live in that culture.

Personally, I'm very happy that a major game studio actually cares about writing good dialogue in an action game.

Shame-usBlackley

There are a TON of resources to draw from other than hiring gang members. That's a ridiculous argument.

And if you believe that being offended that part of the money you paid for a game is going to a criminal means that you can't be interested in the game's subject matter without also being offended, then you are simply wrong-headed. I loathed Ted Bundy and would never have wanted him to receive a dime for being a technical advisor on anything, but I loved  Thomas Harris' The Red Dragon and many other books like it. The two are not mutually exclusive. 

We're talking about a culture, and like all cultures the people better placed to tell you if a dialogue fits with it or not are those who live in it. I will not fault them for using the best possible resource available. 

Would you read this Ted Bundy book? I'm not sure if he got paid for the interviews, but he sure got something out of it (additional fame, the satisfaction of being able to tell his story to the world, etc.), and that is probably more valuable to a death row prisoner than actual money. I think that the Ted Bundy/Red Dragon example doesn't work, though, because serial killing isn't a culture, which means that you have a lot more creative freedom when writing about a fictional serial killer than when writing about a fictional gangster. Case in point: Frank Dolarhyde and Hannibal Lecter have very little in common dialogue-wise and in the way they act in general. 

Here, you have a game that is about the culture itself, and nothing more. The glorification of the gangster culture is necessarily going to bring gangsters additional revenues, whether Rockstar pays them or not, either directly or indirectly. It generates interest and business-savvy gangsters will monetise that interest. You can't be ok with the glorification and not with the act of paying them to advise on said glorification, if only because they will be able generate money off of it either way.

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

Nothing wrong with that tbh. If you're offended by Rockstar paying people to talk the way they normally do in a game that is about their culture, you're doing it wrong. You should start by being offended by the game's glorification of the "gangster" culture in the first place.

The problem here, if there is one (and there isn't), is that GTAV is a gangster story that shoots for a semi-realistic tone, not that they're seeking advice from people who actually live in that culture.

Personally, I'm very happy that a major game studio actually cares about writing good dialogue in an action game.

ReddestSkies

There are a TON of resources to draw from other than hiring gang members. That's a ridiculous argument.

And if you believe that being offended that part of the money you paid for a game is going to a criminal means that you can't be interested in the game's subject matter without also being offended, then you are simply wrong-headed. I loathed Ted Bundy and would never have wanted him to receive a dime for being a technical advisor on anything, but I loved Thomas Harris' The Red Dragon and many other books like it. The two are not mutually exclusive.

We're talking about a culture, and like all cultures the people better placed to tell you if a dialogue fits with it or not are those who live in it. I will not fault them for using the best possible resource available.

Would you read this Ted Bundy book? I'm not sure if he got paid for the interviews, but he sure got something out of it (additional fame, the satisfaction of being able to tell his story to the world, etc.), and that is probably more valuable to a death row prisoner than actual money. I think that the Ted Bundy/Red Dragon example doesn't work, though, because serial killing isn't a culture, which means that you have a lot more creative freedom when writing about a fictional serial killer than when writing about a fictional gangster. Case in point: Frank Dolarhyde and Hannibal Lecter have very little in common dialogue-wise and in the way they act in general.

Here, you have a game that is about the culture itself, and nothing more. The glorification of the gangster culture is necessarily going to bring gangsters additional revenues, whether Rockstar pays them or not, either directly or indirectly. It generates interest and business-savvy gangsters will monetise that interest. You can't be ok with the glorification and not with the act of paying them to advise on said glorification, if only because they will be able generate money off of it either way.

Really? How? Gangs don't earn money from glory, they earn money from drugs, extortion, smuggling, robbery, human slavery and well, a long list of things, but I wasn't aware that fame was among them.

Danny Trejo was a real life criminal and drug addict that turned his life around, does that disqualifies him from being who he is today as an actor? If anything his real life criminal experience only helped him be more authentic in his acting job.SciFiCat

Rockstar is bragging about hiring active gang members. Danny Trejo became an actor long (years) after he turned his life around, he wasn't knocking over banks between movies.

Really? How? Gangs don't earn money from glory, they earn money from drugs, extortion, smuggling, robbery, human slavery and well, a long list of things, but I wasn't aware that fame was among them.

CarnageHeart

It only takes a little imagination to think of ways to monetise the popularity of their culture, but I think that it's more important to argue that glory is a more dangerous reward to give criminals than money. Like you said, they already have a plethora of ways to make money. But GTA and other gangster-glorification products is legitimizing their way of life. It's telling them: "look at all these people who would like to be in your shoes every now and then". It's telling them that what they're doing is a "real" way of life, and that they don't need to change it.

We're talking about a culture, and like all cultures the people better placed to tell you if a dialogue fits with it or not are those who live in it. I will not fault them for using the best possible resource available. 

Would you read this Ted Bundy book? I'm not sure if he got paid for the interviews, but he sure got something out of it (additional fame, the satisfaction of being able to tell his story to the world, etc.), and that is probably more valuable to a death row prisoner than actual money. I think that the Ted Bundy/Red Dragon example doesn't work, though, because serial killing isn't a culture, which means that you have a lot more creative freedom when writing about a fictional serial killer than when writing about a fictional gangster. Case in point: Frank Dolarhyde and Hannibal Lecter have very little in common dialogue-wise and in the way they act in general. 

Here, you have a game that is about the culture itself, and nothing more. The glorification of the gangster culture is necessarily going to bring gangsters additional revenues, whether Rockstar pays them or not, either directly or indirectly. It generates interest and business-savvy gangsters will monetise that interest. You can't be ok with the glorification and not with the act of paying them to advise on said glorification, if only because they will be able generate money off of it either way.

ReddestSkies

Still BS. Undercover police officers and DEA agents can fit into "culture" so well that not even the criminals can detect them from their own. Your "best resource available" argument is a logical fallacy.

And please, Bundy was already notorious by the time he was convicted. The point still stands: you can enjoy creative works without condoning the actions of real-life criminals. Your attempt to say that the increased notoriety somehow negates or nullifies the fact that they are paying criminals is completely invalid. 

I have no issues with this.  The article makes no mention of if these are current or reformed gang members.  They're striving for authenticity and hopefully achieved it.  Could they have used a regular voice actor?  Probably so, but it may not have been as well done.  Granted, there are a few actors who have been down the gang path, such as the aforementioned Danny Trejo.  If anything, the only real problem stemming from using a non-actor is that "regular people" often sound fake when doing dialogue.  It's one thing to say something in the heat of the moment with agression, entirely different when you're trying to convey it into a microphone.  Actors do a better job of getting into that "zone" I guess you would call it.

People join gangs for a variety of different reasons.  Often times it is due to growing up in a horrible environment and feeling your choices are limited in life.  That Rockstar hired some people like this isn't a bad thing.  In fact, it could potentially turn a life or two around.  I feel that's better than the constant shaming and stifling of opportunities because someone has made a few bad decisions.

Danny Trejo was a real life criminal and drug addict that turned his life around, does that disqualifies him from being who he is today as an actor? If anything his real life criminal experience only helped him be more authentic in his acting job.SciFiCat

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

We're talking about a culture, and like all cultures the people better placed to tell you if a dialogue fits with it or not are those who live in it. I will not fault them for using the best possible resource available. 

Would you read this Ted Bundy book? I'm not sure if he got paid for the interviews, but he sure got something out of it (additional fame, the satisfaction of being able to tell his story to the world, etc.), and that is probably more valuable to a death row prisoner than actual money. I think that the Ted Bundy/Red Dragon example doesn't work, though, because serial killing isn't a culture, which means that you have a lot more creative freedom when writing about a fictional serial killer than when writing about a fictional gangster. Case in point: Frank Dolarhyde and Hannibal Lecter have very little in common dialogue-wise and in the way they act in general. 

Here, you have a game that is about the culture itself, and nothing more. The glorification of the gangster culture is necessarily going to bring gangsters additional revenues, whether Rockstar pays them or not, either directly or indirectly. It generates interest and business-savvy gangsters will monetise that interest. You can't be ok with the glorification and not with the act of paying them to advise on said glorification, if only because they will be able generate money off of it either way.

Shame-usBlackley

Still BS. Undercover police officers and DEA agents can fit into "culture" so well that not even the criminals can detect them from their own. Your "best resource available" argument is a logical fallacy.

And please, Bundy was already notorious by the time he was convicted. The point still stands: you can enjoy creative works without condoning the actions of real-life criminals. Your attempt to say that the increased notoriety somehow negates or nullifies the fact that they are paying criminals is completely invalid. 

Nothing I can possibly respond to that, except: no, YOUR arguments are invalid. There, I won ;)

I have no issues with this.  The article makes no mention of if these are current or reformed gang members.  They're striving for authenticity and hopefully achieved it.  Could they have used a regular voice actor?  Probably so, but it may not have been as well done.  Granted, there are a few actors who have been down the gang path, such as the aforementioned Danny Trejo.  If anything, the only real problem stemming from using a non-actor is that "regular people" often sound fake when doing dialogue.  It's one thing to say something in the heat of the moment with agression, entirely different when you're trying to convey it into a microphone.  Actors do a better job of getting into that "zone" I guess you would call it.

People join gangs for a variety of different reasons.  Often times it is due to growing up in a horrible environment and feeling your choices are limited in life.  That Rockstar hired some people like this isn't a bad thing.  In fact, it could potentially turn a life or two around.  I feel that's better than the constant shaming and stifling of opportunities because someone has made a few bad decisions.

isv666

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

Really? How? Gangs don't earn money from glory, they earn money from drugs, extortion, smuggling, robbery, human slavery and well, a long list of things, but I wasn't aware that fame was among them.

ReddestSkies

It only takes a little imagination to think of ways to monetise the popularity of their culture, but I think that it's more important to argue that glory is a more dangerous reward to give criminals than money. Like you said, they already have a plethora of ways to make money. But GTA and other gangster-glorification products is legitimizing their way of life. It's telling them: "look at all these people who would like to be in your shoes every now and then". It's telling them that what they're doing is a "real" way of life, and that they don't need to change it.

Gaming is escapism, period. It's no different than sitting your butt down in a movie seat for a few hours or reading a book. And in that sense, ALL entertainment is cultural, because the entertainment we create here in the states is vastly different than what might constitute entertainment in, say, Afghanistan. 

Bottom line (still) is that your attempt to tie Rockstar's gloating over hiring criminals to the permeation of gangs in (pop) culture is flimsy. Would my enjoyment from playing Manhunt say anything about me? Am I glorifying the "reality show" culture by playing it? Can I play a game like Manhunt and still be sickened by real life murder? Of course, because it's just mindless pop bubblegum throwaway entertainment. It isn't real. My mind would change if I found out that Manhunt hired real killers to enact the most "realistic" killings in the game.

There is a still a distinction between right and wrong, and you don't hire criminals to make a stupid fvcking video game. 

EDIT: Unfortunately, I have to go to my boring, non-criminal job. We will discuss more later today perhaps :)

[QUOTE="isv666"]

I have no issues with this.  The article makes no mention of if these are current or reformed gang members.  They're striving for authenticity and hopefully achieved it.  Could they have used a regular voice actor?  Probably so, but it may not have been as well done.  Granted, there are a few actors who have been down the gang path, such as the aforementioned Danny Trejo.  If anything, the only real problem stemming from using a non-actor is that "regular people" often sound fake when doing dialogue.  It's one thing to say something in the heat of the moment with agression, entirely different when you're trying to convey it into a microphone.  Actors do a better job of getting into that "zone" I guess you would call it.

People join gangs for a variety of different reasons.  Often times it is due to growing up in a horrible environment and feeling your choices are limited in life.  That Rockstar hired some people like this isn't a bad thing.  In fact, it could potentially turn a life or two around.  I feel that's better than the constant shaming and stifling of opportunities because someone has made a few bad decisions.

Black_Knight_00

Also, WHO is this game made for anyway? Because most of the people who buy it wouldn't know the difference between real gang-speak and something creatively crafted and well-delivered. I mean, if the only way you can recreate "authentic" gang talk is by hiring criminals, then aren't the criminals going to be the only ones who can tell such a difference? If Rockstar is making the game for gang members, then I could see trying to make such a huge thrust for authenticity, but when your audience largely consists of a bunch of basement dwellers who live in basements, whose "culture" exposure amounts to a few Jay-Z records, what's the fvcking point?

[QUOTE="isv666"]

I have no issues with this.  The article makes no mention of if these are current or reformed gang members.  They're striving for authenticity and hopefully achieved it.  Could they have used a regular voice actor?  Probably so, but it may not have been as well done.  Granted, there are a few actors who have been down the gang path, such as the aforementioned Danny Trejo.  If anything, the only real problem stemming from using a non-actor is that "regular people" often sound fake when doing dialogue.  It's one thing to say something in the heat of the moment with agression, entirely different when you're trying to convey it into a microphone.  Actors do a better job of getting into that "zone" I guess you would call it.

People join gangs for a variety of different reasons.  Often times it is due to growing up in a horrible environment and feeling your choices are limited in life.  That Rockstar hired some people like this isn't a bad thing.  In fact, it could potentially turn a life or two around.  I feel that's better than the constant shaming and stifling of opportunities because someone has made a few bad decisions.

Black_Knight_00

It doesn't sound as risque if they said former.  And "real gang members" doesn't necessarily equate to them currently being a gang member.  While not gang-related, I've never met a member of the military who refers to themselves as "former (insert branch here)." Not saying that's the same case here, but just using it as an example that there are a lot of people in various professions (legal or otherwise) who may still associate themselves with it while not being actively engaged in it.

My mind would change if I found out that Manhunt hired real killers to enact the most "realistic" killings in the game.

Shame-usBlackley

And what I'm saying is that the problem here, if there is one, should be that they're trying to enact the most realistic killings possible, not that they're paying serial killers for their thoughts on what they came up with, because actual money isn't the only reward that someone gets when someone else makes a product glorifying his way of life.

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="isv666"]

I have no issues with this.  The article makes no mention of if these are current or reformed gang members.  They're striving for authenticity and hopefully achieved it.  Could they have used a regular voice actor?  Probably so, but it may not have been as well done.  Granted, there are a few actors who have been down the gang path, such as the aforementioned Danny Trejo.  If anything, the only real problem stemming from using a non-actor is that "regular people" often sound fake when doing dialogue.  It's one thing to say something in the heat of the moment with agression, entirely different when you're trying to convey it into a microphone.  Actors do a better job of getting into that "zone" I guess you would call it.

People join gangs for a variety of different reasons.  Often times it is due to growing up in a horrible environment and feeling your choices are limited in life.  That Rockstar hired some people like this isn't a bad thing.  In fact, it could potentially turn a life or two around.  I feel that's better than the constant shaming and stifling of opportunities because someone has made a few bad decisions.

Shame-usBlackley

Also, WHO is this game made for anyway? Because most of the people who buy it wouldn't know the difference between real gang-speak and something creatively crafted and well-delivered. I mean, if the only way you can recreate "authentic" gang talk is by hiring criminals, then aren't the criminals going to be the only ones who can tell such a difference? If Rockstar is making the game for gang members, then I could see trying to make such a huge thrust for authenticity, but when your audience largely consists of a bunch of basement dwellers who live in basements, whose "culture" exposure amounts to a few Jay-Z records, what's the fvcking point?

I'd say that is because Rockstar, on average, aims to make a top-notch product and make it as authentic as possible (within the realm of context).  The game is made for people of all walks of life, many of which who may have actually dealt with real gang members in some capacity.  Whether it be cops or lawyers or whatever.  I've dealt with a few just doing my crummy job of cleaning floors*, guys who have moved on beyond that way of life, but still "talk the talk."  Not saying I could sit down and listen to fake dialogue versus real dialogue and be able to tell the difference, just that some people may.

*The floor cleaning profession seems to draw in a lot of people who have a lot of bad baggage and criminal records.

It doesn't sound as risque if they said former. And "real gang members" doesn't necessarily equate to them currently being a gang member. While not gang-related, I've never met a member of the military who refers to themselves as "former (insert branch here)." Not saying that's the same case here, but just using it as an example that there are a lot of people in various professions (legal or otherwise) who may still associate themselves with it while not being actively engaged in it.isv666

[QUOTE="SciFiCat"]Danny Trejo was a real life criminal and drug addict that turned his life around, does that disqualifies him from being who he is today as an actor? If anything his real life criminal experience only helped him be more authentic in his acting job.CarnageHeart

Rockstar is bragging about hiring active gang members. Danny Trejo became an actor long (years) after he turned his life around, he wasn't knocking over banks between movies.

Also, WHO is this game made for anyway? Because most of the people who buy it wouldn't know the difference between real gang-speak and something creatively crafted and well-delivered. I mean, if the only way you can recreate "authentic" gang talk is by hiring criminals, then aren't the criminals going to be the only ones who can tell such a difference? If Rockstar is making the game for gang members, then I could see trying to make such a huge thrust for authenticity, but when your audience largely consists of a bunch of basement dwellers who live in basements, whose "culture" exposure amounts to a few Jay-Z records, what's the fvcking point?

Shame-usBlackley

Well, if I am reading a novel set in ancient Rome, I want it to be as authentic as possible. I want the dialogue to resemble the way people talked back then and I want the way of life depicted accurately. Doesn't really matter how much I know or don't know about it, I would still want an authentic experience. Same goes for movies and games who try to portray a way of life or culture. Very few developers care about this sort of thing and just write out of their asses, so in that context I thoroughly respect Rockstar's trademark obsessing over details.

I don't want to get into this discussion of whether I approve or not of how Rockstar got to this authenticity because I don't know all the details, I'm not sure how I feel about it and I don't know if I care at all, but what I do know is that I definitely want the game to feel as authentic as possible.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/09/04/real-gang-members-feature-as-voice-actors-in-gta-v

Rockstar went to actual gangbangers and asked them to provide insight and voice work for GTAV. Frankly I don't like this, I'm ok with actors playing criminals, but I am not ok with the entertainment industry giving money to actual criminal to act like themselves in front of a microphone.

Any thoughts on this?

Black_Knight_00

Why is that a problem? Lazlow is spot on and its ridiculous to get some fancy prep school boy actor when your going for authenticity. Also hiring criminals might also help them, so only problem i can see is coming from jealousy. Jacanuk

I think it's ridiculous to be offended by something like that. People are fascinated with mafia shows like The Sopranos, who consult with real mobsters, much like this.

[QUOTE="Jacanuk"]Why is that a problem? Lazlow is spot on and its ridiculous to get some fancy prep school boy actor when your going for authenticity. Also hiring criminals might also help them, so only problem i can see is coming from jealousy. Black_Knight_00

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="Jacanuk"]Why is that a problem? Lazlow is spot on and its ridiculous to get some fancy prep school boy actor when your going for authenticity. Also hiring criminals might also help them, so only problem i can see is coming from jealousy. Jacanuk

I can understand why this might bother some but it is hardly unusual to see a blurring of the line between entertainment and reality.

Hunter S. Thompson spent an entire year entrenched with the Hell's Angels, riding with them and experiencing firsthand their debauchery and illegal activities.

You could also examine the rap music industry, where criminality and the veneration of the gangster lifestyle often translates into musicians and industry members who are, quite literally, engaged in illegal activity on a regular basis.

Personally I think the need for such exacting authenticity is unnecessary but regardless, when placed into context of the entertainment industry as a whole, I would consider such measures relatively mild.

Really? This is a thing? This is a controversy? Come on people. There are tons of works of art from TV to movies that have real criminal consultants to make the source material authentic. dvader654