This topic is locked from further discussion.
I always dig your posts. :P Such a concise and intelligent summary of the issue.Danm_999
Meh it's possibly the scariest replying to you since you actually use your brain around here, so I'm anxious if I got any holes of logic in my argument. You know how it is, you can sometimes get away with lack of logic amongst the forumites around here muahahahaha.
Now I say, adieu and goodbye.
-gets sucked back in the void, never to return for an indefinitely long period-
/\ Great post Frozen, I'd properly comment but I am too tired to respond to the lot.
I will say that Niko's character is fundamentally flawed, and far from the best example of a great game character.
His own character is a complete contrast to the players own actions.
Niko wants to stop killing, and forget the 'old country'.
Yet the player can completely abuse this by going on killing rampages, murdering bystanders for no reason (and whatnot) completely obliterating any sympathy towards him. The character is a complete contrast to the gameplay and players attitude. It doesn't fit.
Which is why the silent or typical protagonists of earlier GTA fitted so much better, as they weren't so strictly tied to their own character values.
It does contradict the whole story for sure. But you have to remember that the game gives you no reason to kill innocent bystanders. I remember playing through the game the first time in that fashion, and I couldn't take the story that seriously becasue of it. The second time though, when trying to avoid bystanders altogether, and all your kills are legitimate, you can take the story and Niko a lot more seriously. It may seem that it's just causing more restrictions, but I personally found it to be a more intense experience than if I played with a rampaging style. You can get by the entire game not killing a single bystander. The player control can go both ways, even though the rampaging style may be the majority./\ Great post Frozen, I'd properly comment but I am too tired to respond to the lot.
I will say that Niko's character is fundamentally flawed, and far from the best example of a great game character.
His own character is a complete contrast to the players own actions.
Niko wants to stop killing, and forget the 'old country'.
Yet the player can completely abuse this by going on killing rampages, murdering bystanders for no reason (and whatnot) completely obliterating any sympathy towards him. The character is a complete contrast to the gameplay and players attitude. It doesn't fit.
Which is why the silent or typical protagonists of earlier GTA fitted so much better, as they weren't so strictly tied to their own character values.
skrat_01
It does contradict the whole story for sure. But you have to remember that the game gives you no reason to kill innocent bystanders. I remember playing through the game the first time in that fashion, and I couldn't take the story that seriously becasue of it. The second time though, when trying to avoid bystanders altogether, and all your kills are legitimate, you can take the story and Niko a lot more seriously. It may seem that it's just causing more restrictions, but I personally found it to be a more intense experience than if I played with a rampaging style. You can get by the entire game not killing a single bystander. The player control can go both ways, even though the rampaging style may be the majority.mo0ksiProblem is that scope of control and design is there.
If the game really punished - or caused change - for killing bystanders and this tied with the driving narrative and Nikos character (in a meaningful manner), it could have been compelling - having some sort of narrative driven by gameplay design.
However Rockstar well, didn't, which is why GTA IV is one of those games that doesn't really know exactly what it wants to be.
It wants to to be over the top with high end action, chaos, and hilarity (the radio stations, bill boards ect.)... then it wants to be story driven, cinematic and compelling (i'm betting Rockstar took heavy influence from Mafia tbh - despite the age bracket) - trying to 'mature' the franchise).
Niko seems like a reflection of all of that.
Though just that Niko does not want to kill alone really messes things up. Difference is open world games with compelling narratives like Mafia did not have central characters contradicting the very gameplay devices they are part of.
/\ Great post Frozen, I'd properly comment but I am too tired to respond to the lot.
I will say that Niko's character is fundamentally flawed, and far from the best example of a great game character.
His own character is a complete contrast to the players own actions.
Niko wants to stop killing, and forget the 'old country'.
Yet the player can completely abuse this by going on killing rampages, murdering bystanders for no reason (and whatnot) completely obliterating any sympathy towards him. The character is a complete contrast to the gameplay and players attitude. It doesn't fit.
Which is why the silent or typical protagonists of earlier GTA fitted so much better, as they weren't so strictly tied to their own character values.
skrat_01
R* had to make a decision on whether or not to impede upon the killing of bystanders. To severely restrict players would take away the sandbox nature of the game. While R* doesn't actually dissuade you from killing unnecessarily, it doesn't encourage you either. Note that there aren't any 'rampage' missions in GTAIV, and that there aren't 'fun' weapons like in the previous games. The ability to shoot bystanders is just there, but it doesn't take away from the canonicity of the character. Does teabagging Combine soldiers and crouching in front of Alyx's crotch take away from Gordon's canonicity? (yes, he does have one, however skeletal it is).
Problem is that scope of control and design is there.[QUOTE="mo0ksi"] It does contradict the whole story for sure. But you have to remember that the game gives you no reason to kill innocent bystanders. I remember playing through the game the first time in that fashion, and I couldn't take the story that seriously becasue of it. The second time though, when trying to avoid bystanders altogether, and all your kills are legitimate, you can take the story and Niko a lot more seriously. It may seem that it's just causing more restrictions, but I personally found it to be a more intense experience than if I played with a rampaging **** You can get by the entire game not killing a single bystander. The player control can go both ways, even though the rampaging ****may be the majority.skrat_01
If the game really punished - or caused change - for killing bystanders and this tied with the driving narrative and Nikos character (in a meaningful manner), it could have been compelling - having some sort of narrative driven by gameplay design.
However Rockstar well, didn't, which is why GTA IV is one of those games that doesn't really know exactly what it wants to be.
It wants to to be over the top with high end action, chaos, and hilarity (the radio stations, bill boards ect.)... then it wants to be story driven, cinematic and compelling (i'm betting Rockstar took heavy influence from Mafia tbh - despite the age bracket) - trying to 'mature' the franchise).
Niko seems like a reflection of all of that.
Though just that Niko does not want to kill alone really messes things up. Difference is open world games with compelling narratives like Mafia did not have central characters contradicting the very gameplay devices they are part of.
If the game impelled you to not kill bystanders for the sake of narrative then I think R* would have had their priorities mixed up. Let's get a few things straight first:
The Grand Theft Auto series is a satire. From the crazy arcadey action of the top-down games to the more realistic-driven latest, it's a series based on satire. That's why there's funny advertisements, over-the-top reactions etc - you've experienced this in real life, and now you're looking at a perversion of real life. Grand Theft Auto IV doesn't change that.
Can a satire not be story driven, cinematic, and compelling? What you're actually thinking of is melodrama. Yes, Grand Theft Auto IV is a fair bit more melodramatic than the previous entries in the series. However, irony, an offshoot of satire, is always lingering not to far away from any plot point in the game.
Remember this: Grand Theft Auto IV is ironic.
This is where your argument confounds me. It doesn't take a deep analysis to know that Niko's story is the perversion of the 'American Dream'. Niko, who lived and fought in the oppressed region of the Bosnian Wars, wants out. He wants to start a new life in America, but he cannot begin that new life without first doing a couple of things: 1) Finish what was started in the Wars (i.e find Florian Cravic) 2) build himself up in the capitalist world (where previously he fought in a war catalyzed by the fall of Communism). The entire game pretty much 'says' that in order for him to find peace, quiet, and live the 'American Dream' in the States, he's going to have to kill a lot more, and he's going to have to continue to live in sin and greed which is what the 'American Dream' is built upon.
Skrat, this is the entire focal point of the story. Many of the older generation looked at America with rose-coloured glasses. They thought their miserable lives in post-war Europe would pale in comparison to starting a new life in the States. It was incredibly idealistic, and upon coming to America, they realize it's nothing like they thought it would be.
So, it's ironic that for Niko to start anew, he has to dig up old graves. Thus his character is not fundamentally flawed, simply because with every additional body count he's getting closer to not needing to kill people anymore. Every kill he makes, he gets money. Money is what fuels capitalism. With capitalism, he can 'pay off' the death toll and carry on living life. Note that in both endings to the game, that while Niko has finally achieved closing the chapter on his life, he's realized just how different the actual 'Dream' is.
I don't think for a second R* made the 'fundamental flaw' of letting a sympathetic character go on a noticeable rampage. On the contrary, I think it was probably one of the first things they wrote down on paper:
"Hey, wouldn't it be cool if the new guy in GTA wanted out of war-torn Europe, but he needed to fight his way into America?"
It just makes way more sense that way.
In summary, no, Niko's character is not contradictory, not if you look at it in a darkly satirical way; and if the GTA series is a satire, then it's the only way to look at it.
Lulz People really getting wound up over it? Gordon won the popularity contest. The good, compelling characters got knocked out at the start - its a popularity contest. However Gordon isn't even a proper character, he is a piece of game design. Rather this poll was for the greatest video game 'hero', not 'best / compelling character'.skrat_01Lulz Anon fixed the poll, everything else concerning this is "Moot" (pun intended) argument and the Freeman wouldn't have won otherwise, but alas he did and it isn't Valve's fault though.
R* had to make a decision on whether or not to impede upon the killing of bystanders. To severely restrict players would take away the sandbox nature of the game. While R* doesn't actually dissuade you from killing unnecessarily, it doesn't encourage you either. Note that there aren't any 'rampage' missions in GTAIV, and that there aren't 'fun' weapons like in the previous games. The ability to shoot bystanders is just there, but it doesn't take away from the canonicity of the character. Does teabagging Combine soldiers and crouching in front of Alyx's crotch take away from Gordon's canonicity? (yes, he does have one, however skeletal it is).
FrozenLiquid
Indeed, indeed. However in this instance it does. Teabagging characters or crouching infront of Alyx's crouch is a poor comparison, as Gordon has no character, and doing either, while stupid is not outside Valves way of pushing a narrative of the player as a 'hero' - hence why you cannot shoot or kill friendlies.
In GTA IV the players actions contrast to the characters development during the central story progression. As the player is technically controlling the character it makes it all too confusing. While Rockstar does use this as a narrative device (during the central story arc), it loses its impact severely with the ability to murder everything. Either the game design or the character design really needed to accommodate this appropriately.
Oh I completely agree on the above, a very nice way of putting it all.If the game impelled you to not kill bystanders for the sake of narrative then I think R* would have had their priorities mixed up. Let's get a few things straight first:
The Grand Theft Auto series is a satire. From the crazy arcadey action of the top-down games to the more realistic-driven latest, it's a series based on satire. That's why there's funny advertisements, over-the-top reactions etc - you've experienced this in real life, and now you're looking at a perversion of real life. Grand Theft Auto IV doesn't change that.
Can a satire not be story driven, cinematic, and compelling? What you're actually thinking of is melodrama. Yes, Grand Theft Auto IV is a fair bit more melodramatic than the previous entries in the series. However, irony, an offshoot of satire, is always lingering not to far away from any plot point in the game.
Remember this: Grand Theft Auto IV is ironic.
This is where your argument confounds me. It doesn't take a deep analysis to know that Niko's story is the perversion of the 'American Dream'. Niko, who lived and fought in the oppressed region of the Bosnian Wars, wants out. He wants to start a new life in America, but he cannot begin that new life without first doing a couple of things: 1) Finish what was started in the Wars (i.e find Florian Cravic) 2) build himself up in the capitalist world (where previously he fought in a war catalyzed by the fall of Communism). The entire game pretty much 'says' that in order for him to find peace, quiet, and live the 'American Dream' in the States, he's going to have to kill a lot more, and he's going to have to continue to live in sin and greed which is what the 'American Dream' is built upon.
Skrat, this is the entire focal point of the story. Many of the older generation looked at America with rose-coloured glasses. They thought their miserable lives in post-war Europe would pale in comparison to starting a new life in the States. It was incredibly idealistic, and upon coming to America, they realize it's nothing like they thought it would be.
So, it's ironic that for Niko to start anew, he has to dig up old graves. Thus his character is not fundamentally flawed, simply because with every additional body count he's getting closer to not needing to kill people anymore. Every kill he makes, he gets money. Money is what fuels capitalism. With capitalism, he can 'pay off' the death toll and carry on living life. Note that in both endings to the game, that while Niko has finally achieved closing the chapter on his life, he's realized just how different the actual 'Dream' is.
I don't think for a second R* made the 'fundamental flaw' of letting a sympathetic character go on a noticeable rampage. On the contrary, I think it was probably one of the first things they wrote down on paper:
"Hey, wouldn't it be cool if the new guy in GTA wanted out of war-torn Europe, but he needed to fight his way into America?"
It just makes way more sense that way.
In summary, no, Niko's character is not contradictory, not if you look at it in a darkly satirical way; and if the GTA series is a satire, then it's the only way to look at it.
FrozenLiquid
However this is a fundamental flaw in his character against the game design, of which I have said.
Killing a city full of innocent bystanders does not make sense with his character design and grates horribly against the message Rockstar wants Niko to represent.
GTA is satirical, however how do you satirise the players actions when controlling the main focal point of the story in this instance? While Niko might communicate this message, it makes no sense in the context of the game outside the story... especially in the sandbox game design of GTA - (which itself is flawed).
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment