 |
| GTA San Andreas, promo artwork, 2004 |
GTA IV, in my opinion as previously expressed, is unfairly criticised. I can understand why it looked scaled-back, hemmed-in, and bleak compared to the instalments of the 3D era: Vice City and San Andreas. They were fantastical romps through virtual worlds. I honestly haven't gone back to IV in the way that I did with San Andreas. That sat in my PS2 for something like three years just so I could jump in and use some cheats to rampage. Rockstar could have banged out a clone of a GTA-clone, but you have to innovate - the market is full of GTA-clones. IV opted to be narrative driven. A story about a war veteran seeking answers in a new country and closure for a betrayal over a decade in the past doesn't leave much room for aliens or jetpacks. Tellingly, the media completely overlooked this in favour of repeating the same stories about being able to murder prostitutes. At least GTA IV was trying to say something, which lends at least a little more credence to video games as being as much a valid medium as film. Nevertheless, the reception of IV may have been successful but the legacy falls behind the gameplay achievements of San Andreas. Conversely, while I've played SA many many times through and had great fun, it's the story of IV that left more of an impact on me. Maybe that's my noir-ish tendencies.
Thus GTA V has set out to supersede San Andreas nine years later. Having frequented GTAforums for what seemed like forever for the latest scrap of news, I was concerned the map was not going to live up to expectations. Before my month-long blackout to avoid spoilers I saved an image from the forums in which users had put together a rough layout of the map based on screenshots. It bore a disclaimer about the scale almost certainly being wrong. When I began the first mission I was still concerned. The in-game map was of course not yet filled in, but it didn't look like it zoomed out very far. Messing around and admiring the beach, I stole a lifeguard truck and switched on the sirens to take to Great Ocean Highway. I felt like I had been driving for five minutes - surely enough to have crossed the Liberty City map - and saw that I was less than halfway up the coast. As more of the map filled in I became more and more satisfied about just how large it is. I recoiled at exploring more, however. I wanted to savour it, perhaps because V departs from series tradition in offering a single island rather than several which are progressively unlocked with the story. The sheer distance does act like a barrier, though, as you'll quickly find helicopter is the fastest way to move between Los Santos and Sandy Shores.
Having to traverse the map becomes necessary once Trevor is introduced out in the desert, and switching characters is the major gameplay innovation in the series. I was sceptical of this game mechanic at first because I thought it would impair the player's connection with the protagonist's story. From the trailers I had come to think of Michael as the protagonist, even after it was revealed there would be three. I still thought this even though the playable prologue is really about the background between Michael and Trevor. Then when the game begins in the present day you play as Franklin - who I came to see as the linchpin of the story as it explores the relationship between Michael and Trevor, although he did come off as under-written and perfunctory because of this. The switching mechanic allows us to see the story from several angles and especially sympathise with Trevor over the effect of Michael's FIB deal, which fleshes him out beyond a two-dimensional psychopath. Some missions have a mandatory switch to another character in order to progress. Trevor is a pilot, Franklin is a getaway driver, and Michael is the gunman so it is reasonable that each of them carries out their speciality in a mission and allows the player to take part in these segments. The alternative is to exclude the player from the whole experience or have the character be a one-man army jack of all trades.
Character switching has other uses. In a much-discussed mission the player cannot dodge the issue. The FIB has the protagonists do their dirty work in a series of missions, one of which is to use 'enhanced interrogation techniques' on a suspect known as Mr K. Many players, myself included, will have attempted to avoid playing as Trevor as he variously water-boards, plays dentist, and electrocutes the suspect, in favour of being marksman with Michael. However, there is the quandary that without the information he will be left to randomly shoot at innocent party-goers until he happens upon the wanted individual. The player then must jump to Trevor to extract the information, and Mr K does seem to have that information which clouds his own innocence. For those that found smashing his kneecap more than a little uncomfortable, being forced to perform these acts in order to progress through the mission was a source of great tension. It made great use of the shifting connection between the player and the character. It's as true that Trevor must follow the orders given in the narrative as you must follow those given by the game - both are puppets to a higher power in that moment. It's often taken for granted that the player and his in-game avatar are one. The only other game I recall that explores breaking this link is Metal Gear Solid 2 - if you want to complete the game you're going to have to submit. GTA is always a bit more low-brow and finishes the mission with Trevor having a humorous surreal conversation with Mr K that is a fairly blatant criticism of the use of torture in the 'War on Terror'.
Having completed the game after four very long days, I do wonder whether narrative and gameplay can be balanced. IV had so clearly leaned toward story, and yet as I watched the cutscene of the final story mission in V I really did think: was that it? The final mission is usually a grand multi-part affair that you feel relieved to have completed after several tries. It seemed the fun peaked with the final heist but the conflict between the protagonists was still to be resolved. The way they went about that seemed rushed and a bit lazy in that the solution, as ever in GTA, is to simply kill the boss after you've done all his missions. I took the third option for the ending, though I was close to siding against Trevor after what happened to Floyd, and perhaps because each of the protagonists separately dispatches the three thorns in their side it felt cut up into little bites rather than an extravagant ending. It may be that it's fairly open as an ending in order to make space for an 'Episodes from Los Santos'. I wished there had been more heists available as I enjoyed all, especially 'The Paleto Score'. They remind me of SA's 'Breaking the Bank at Caligula's' with the lead-in missions to acquire equipment and disguises and transport - I still have a save that allows me to jump into that series of missions. Apparently GTA Online will satiate that desire, though I imagine the server-melting record set by Sim City will probably be easily broken.
All in all, GTA V is a good game. It does rise to San Andreas by bringing back a lot of customisation options and providing a truly huge map - and we'll see if Online makes good on that basis. For me, though, GTA IV still has the superior story and I was really happy to catch cameos and lines of dialogue that shed light on events after IV ends (as well as callbacks to SA). I do wonder whether GTA VI can be made, however far down the line that is, without rehashing a lot of elements we've seen before. The radio stations haven't drawn me in so far, and finally seeing the series jester Lazlow was funny but left me thinking the well is running dry. I don't doubt that GTA V is going to last. It's only now that people have finally moved on from searching for Bigfoot and other cryptids in San Andreas. Very few games have that lasting power and it's a testament to the open worlds Rockstar can create.
[1645; +1]
No comments:
Post a Comment