I have tried to play every Grand Theft Auto since GTA III, and I don’t get it. At all. I don’t understand the allure, the controversy, or why anyone would care about these games. Ever.
The first time I saw Grand Theft Auto III, I admit that I definitely understood the idea behind the appeal… the idea of “sandbox” games was still pretty revolutionary, and the concept of being able to do “anything” was utterly fascinating. Not having a next generation system myself, it took a few months before I was able to see the game in action when a friend of mine brought it over to my house, and the hype had me on the edge of my seat as I sat through that 4 minute loading screen.
It would take just another four minutes before I wanted to fall asleep while watching him play it.
However, I toughed it out… I assumed that I needed to get the controller in my hands and experience the game myself. So when I finally was able to try the game, I went for broke and tried all of those awesome things I had heard about in reviews and conversations.
I went and highjacked a car, and drove it around… and it was like driving in a racing game with crappy driving mechanics.
After getting bored, I got out and attacked strangers on the street... and it was like playing a 3rd person action game with crappy fighting mechanics.
I roamed the city, looked for trouble, tried my hand at missions, and generally became bored enough that I resolved that Grand Theft Auto maybe just was not my thing.
Burning bridges is never easy in the gaming world though… GTA is a rousing success, reaching near-universal acclaim across the gaming industry. Yet, as I comb through reviews, it is hard to find specific traits that people praise… in fact, most reviews are filled with criticism that makes the high scores that the games receive at best confusing. The highlights I usually find are, “you’ll have so much fun driving around,” or, “there are so many extras to keep you entertained beyond the core gameplay.” I found no thrills driving around aimlessly just because I could, and the extras struck me as little more than phoned in mini games. I kept looking to friends, bloggers, or anyone to explain what makes these games so iconic and loveable, to absolutely no avail. All I saw was as sandbox that was about as fun as a box of sand.
Finally, a beacon of light shown through my abysmal views of GTA: Chinatown Wars for the Nintendo DS. Being a handheld gamer at heart, I finally felt like this was truly the opportunity for me to see what everyone was talking about when they raved about GTA. I was even more reassured when I read Destructoid’s review, which hailed it to be one of the best games on the Nintendo DS. I was thrilled to go into Gamestop and buy the game on the day it was released, ready to cut through the haze that had surrounded my gaming view for so many years.
And yet, as I tapped my way from mission to mission, the feeling of familiarity sank deep into my stomach. I was playing every Grand Theft Auto I had played before, from the terrible driving mechanics to the almost useless combat system. The “extras” this time around were just as unsatisfying as before, and the missions were almost an insulting waste of my time. The most fun I had with the game was buying and selling drugs for an hour before realizing I had nothing to spend it on except for more drugs or guns, the latter of which would only be useful if I cared about the combat.
I admit I suck at Grand Theft Auto games, but I also have to admit, I don’t even know what that means. Taking away all of the problems with gameplay, the lack of unique gameplay features, and a throw away story, the only thing this game could possibly provide is senseless fun, but I am even lost on this concept… I have yet to find the fun in driving aimlessly, button mashing to lock onto a proper target, or playing a button pressing game to have sex with a prostitute.
So I call out to the gaming community as a whole, can someone please explain the devout following that these games have, the high scores they receive, and what the hell I’m missing.
And why not, a prize to anyone who can successfully explain why GTA games are so damn special: a free, barely used copy of GTA: Chinatown Wars for the Nintendo DS. The only noticeable signs of wear and tear on it is a scuff mark on the case from where it was thrown across the room in disgust approximately 2 hours after purchase.
|
BA Chieftain's blog
follow this blog
subscribe via RSS
send message
invite to meetup+play
Chase people, kill people.
After GTA II, the whole series went downhill (ugh, I still have nightmares about San Andreas). Even IV did away with the fun sandbox mayhem, but that's where Saint's Row took over.
I wonder about posts like these sometimes. It seems strange to me, asking for a verbal explaination of what there is to like about something you've already played and assured yourself that you do not enjoy. I would think perhaps a favorable review would make some sense of it enough, since most popular opinion is either gleaned from or distilled into those mainstream reviews. Is it not enough to know, first hand, that you're incapable of enjoying the experience?
Bleh. Anyway...
For me, GTA III was a big deal. This wasn't about levels or super planned out tunnels. No running a pre programmed gauntlet at the specific whim of a level designer. What GTA offered, before most other games (save for PC rpg's like Ultima and Morrowind), was a large setting in which the content of your play between point A and point B wasn't always so clearly defined.
Perhaps its a matter of context. Sandboxers are a dime a dozen now. Did you ever play Driver? Or Shenmue? Both of those games stepped next to the elements of GTA, but came short of offering the full experience. Its not that GTA has the best of any one thing, but that this combination of things are present in a solid enough quality to be available on decision.
I'm not doing a driving level, then a shooting level, then a bike level, then a bus level. Its all there to fill what ever situation I need at the time.
Long story short (too late), its the realization of a detailed, nuanced setting that has me really enjoying GTA for months at a time (then, admittedly, putting it on a shelf for months and months). When things like this are able to happen out cutscenes or specific situations being scripted, the prospect of figuring out what you need to do for any given situation can be really exciting.
At least that's how I see it.
@Tubatic:
I wasn't necessarily looking for someone to convince me to like GTA... I'm well beyond that point. I consider myself someone who has a fairly broad understanding of what video games are capable of from an enjoyment perspective, and I could not for the life of me find any rationale for why GTA was even acceptable, let alone enjoyable. Though I accept I will despise the games forever, I want to at least have an understanding of why people do enjoy it.
And I understand the excitement that GTA III brought to the table, simply as an icon of the sandbox genre (in the same way that Super Mario 64 is an icon for 3D platforming). But the options were still "combat" and "driving"... you might have 15 different guns, or 20 different vehicles, but it was old hat quick. In fact, I have trouble identifying what GTA created that wasn't in Mario 64. All things being equal, they both had increasingly larger environments that you could tackle any direction you wanted. They both offered multiple ways to tackle an issue. They both involved Italians. The list goes on. GTA just did "more" for each of these things... more environments, more options, but still about as guided as Mario, just without silly hats.
Also, I see the definition of sandbox gameplay changing with games like Pocket Physics for the DS homebrew and Scribblenauts... these are games (well, P-Physics is technically just a tech demo) that really allow for near-infinite options, which I feel is the idea behind sandbox games even if it isn't the current execution.
Thank you for your explanation :)
Pocket Physics (honestly, just testing to see how this coding works)
I actually completely agree with you here. I have never seen the appeal of any of the GTA games at all.
@BA
Well, then that makes some sense. :)
I find it strange that you're drawing a parallel between GTA III and Mario 64. They're both milestone games, but they're really very different, and, no offense, the similarities seem a bit forced. You can manage the same exercise with Pong and Mario64, if you have enough words, but that doesn't make Mario64 less interesting for its nuance.
But consider a conceit: Mario 64 re-done in the image of GTA III (functionally, to scale the nature of the impact)
- Mario is tasked with meeting his goal of finding the Princess by seeking the tangible assistance of various Mushroom Kingdom vassels.
- Mario is placed in a world that exists regardless of his input. There are towns of mushroom guys and koopas, going about their own business.
- The mushroom kingdom has its own day-night cycle, which has a slight impact on the activity of the kingdom
- Mario has all his moves, but, can glean the powers of any NPC around him (hammersuit, wings, squat stature), more or less at will
- Mario is presented with discreet goals, but, he must also deal with the rules of the world (retainer traffic, random vine growth, the local koopa authorities), at any given moment.
- At times, the goal may be stated simple enough to allow for any number of solutions. Ride a Yoshi up a mountain, jump in a pipe that warps you there, set up a rope before hand that will pull you up to the star. Or, find a way to knock the mountain down. All are possible acceptable solutions.
For my own curiousity: what's a game that you enjoy?
(I'm coffee fueled tonight. Pardon my inordinate attention to your post)
GTAIII was awesome because of the free-roaming world which, at the time, was not at all common. The fact that you basically "role-played" is what made the game. You were a criminal, but you had a lot of freedom in how did many of the missions and how you spent your spare time. Since you had no pre-assigned voice or identity, the character was basically YOU. That immersion factor plus all the fun you could have just commiting random crimes and playing with the engine is what made GTAIII such a masterpiece. If you don't like the GTA games, that's cool, but I think you should seriously give San Andreas a try. It's easily the best GTA so far in terms of setting, freedom, overall coolness, storyline, and everything. GTA4 has jaw-dropping graphics and a lot of great things, but it cannot even hold a candle to the sheer awesomeness of San Andreas. Give it a try.
I don't know... I don't think you can really explain it to someone that doesn't get it.
You either get it or you don't.
I enjoy the completition aspect. Collect stuff, packages, graffity, whatever. Then at one point, finding a specific car and completing the list. That's why when aproaching the end of the game i get really bored, cause there's nothing else to do. So i start again.
Nothing to explain really. I played it, found stuff, wanted to keep finding stuff. And they were really big cities! That was nice too. I completely understand your side of the argument, but i'm fine with all that.
I think that I liked a lot of the things that you disliked, so I don't think that it's something that can be really well argued. The voice-acting and writing are exceptional by any standards though. I think my favourite parts of the games have been the chat stations/commercials, and the dialogue. Also, wiping out on motorbikes and being run over by the cops is for some reason deeply entertaining.
On a more personal level, I'll never forget my grandpa's dislike of the protagonist in GTA III. After seeing the game content and expressing his dislike for the actions portrayed, every time he saw me playing it, he'd recognize the green jacket and dark pants on the guy and remark "Oh, it's this asshole again."
"They both involved Italians." <Hahahaha awesome.
No but anyways, there were actually other sandbox games before GTA III (ie. Body Harvest), it's just that GTA did it a little better and I grew up with the first two GTA's and to hear about this new totally revamped GTA was a little exciting. But it totally lost it's appeal with Vice City, San Andreas, and IV, in my opinion.
I think maybe people find a sense of enjoyment in causing utter chaos. Being able to manipulate a virtual world and do whatever you want is fun, but only for like ten minutes.
These are mainly just my opinions, but, like you, I'm trying to get what others see.
Speaking of Rockstar, is anyone else really stoked, but worried, for Max Payne 3?
I tried very hard to play through San Andreas on my dad's PC (he has an Alienware with a GTX275, I have an old crappy laptop running Linux), but the controls were so piss-poor that I couldn't. Steering was way too sensitive and I could not fly an aircraft, especially not a helicopter, without unintentionally crashing.
GTAIV is one of the best games I've played. The story is awesome, the missions never really feel too repetitive, the characters are all interesting, the graphics are great, and the level of detail in the world is amazing. I sometimes just stand on a street corner and watch the pedestrians and traffic interact. The controls are great (with a gamepad, of course). Most of all, the way that Liberty City feels so alive is what I love. It's like roaming a parody of New York City.
To me, the GTA series is about one thing; making a videogame that's not like a "videogame". That's the one thing that the creators of the 3D GTAs have said over and over, that they want to make games that don't follow "videogame logic", that feel like interactive gangster movies, blah blah blah.
Not my thing, but I get why other people dig it.
haha, Driving game with crappy driving mechanics, and fighting game with crappy fighting mechanics. I enjoyed the read, and can't explain what the appeal is other than "going against the grain" because of how controversial the title is.
great read!
My first GTA game was the top down view of the Dreamcast version... it sucked compared to other games for the system and I never finished. With so many perfect 10 scores, I decided to try GTA4.
Yeah, the driving mechanics absolutely sucked!! They could have taken a page from Burnout's book and made the cars fun to drive... but no... driving in the game was a complete chore. Same with the fighting mechanics. You nailed it. A crappy fighter combined with a totally sub-par shooter - no fun, no sense of fluidity.
While I can see why some people enjoyed the game, I honestly don't understand how GTA4 managed to get so many perfect 10 scores from reviewers. I couldn't bring myself to finish the game and like yourself I found many of the missions boring. It may have been one of the first sandbox games, but with so many on the current market, the perfect 10 score seemed very odd for a game that seemed to bring nothing new to the table, had fairly average graphics and had comparatively bad controls compared to other games.
Like the game or not... those reviews made me entirely give up on ever looking at review scores again. From that point onward I looked to the opinions of other gamers... people with similar tastes, or just my own opinions and a blind bet of $60.00. I almost suspect that the high scores were an attempt to help Rockstar out as they were in financial difficulty at the time and a hostile takeover was looming - it seemed to me that Reviewers were almost "backing the company" rather than the game which seemed an overall disservice to the actual gamers.
Eh.... the game aside it taught me my own lesson about "review scores" - a lesson every gamer learns at some point I guess.
The short version of what I got to say is:
GTA has always been about escapism for me. I feel uninhibited when playing a GTA. Of course, I've liked GTA since it first came out, so the transition to 3D with GTA3 was an amazing experience. I can see why some people wouldn't be able to get into GTA, though. Hell, I have more fun just driving around and doing shenanigans than I do the missions. In fact, the missions are really something I do when I get bored of driving around and crashing into things, doing ridiculous (non-scripted) stunts, and killing people for no reason.
I wish that you could "get it", though. They really are amazing games in terms of scope. You do get multiple genres of games in one package (which incidentally become it's own genre -- sandbox).
Thank you to everyone who responded... honestly, I was mostly looking for people to respond the way most of you did. I was not looking for someone to prove me wrong, I just wanted to be enlightened to what the pull was for this type of game. To the people that listed specific features, thank you for mentioning those as well... I did not see those kind of things in the reviews, but they really are worth mentioning. There were three responses that I found particularly enlightening:
@Jonathan Holmes: I was not aware of that... if I had to guess, I think that's where my disconnect with the genre really comes through. Understanding that their attempt was not to make a "videogame" but something different helps to explain a lot of the things I saw as flaws. They would be flaws in a "videogame" but very acceptable in what they were attempting.
@The Prodigal Son: The quality of escapism has never been a draw of videogames to me, but you make an interesting point... the idea of a sandbox game really does allow for an immersion factor that is difficult to find otherwise.
@Tubatic: Thank you immensely for your response... your example was incredibly helpful to my understanding of the game. The idea of the discrete world is one that I never fully appreciated in my experiences, perhaps because I was unable to spend any significant amount of time in one to really feel the surroundings. I could not for the life of me find it in Chinatown Wars, but I'd be willing to bet that a few committed hours in the 3D games would bring it out.
And as for games I like, I'm pretty eclectic... puzzle games have always been a big draw, RTS's to an extent, FPS's when I'm in the mood, and usually one or two RPGs a year. For the most part I'll play anything, which is why my distaste for GTA really bothered me (I don't like Castlevania either, but I can appreciate it as its beautiful qualities are discovered within just a few minutes of gameplay).
Yay, I appreciate GTA! Thank you all again :)
I guess another reason the GTA series is popular is because it is just plain cool. It roped in non-gamers with its violence and humor (the style of the time), and it made those who were already gamers not feel like total nerds. I'm not sure if this is why I enjoyed the GTA series (though I have only played GTA III and Vice City), but it could be a reason.