facsmth
Leela Lover.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2004
- Messages
- 474
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 11
Fantasy.
Yeah, I said it. The Grand Theft Auto series depresses me. It's probably one of the most accessible fantasy there is. Other fantasy activities may include: being a super hero, being a sports athlete, fighting orcs, or being a murderer. This last activity (atleast in the respect of the current state of Ultima Online is concerned, you have to be a highly skilled player with lots of in-game resources, and an "uber" character to accomplish this task. I guess I'm dated in referencing UO... you can also be a PK in the game "Fable."
The first game I played in which I could kill people in a realistic fashion was the SNES version of Wolfenstien 3D. You'd open a door, a bunch of Nazi soldiers in the next room would spot you and say "Halt." You just had to move backwards through the open door, wait for it to close. Then, shoot whoever was stupid enough to open the door. In this case: everyone of the bad guys. Sure, this game didn't have red pixels representing blood. But the thrill was still there. After you were done killing, just walk over the bodies that would lay there and, unlike any other game I had played at any time before, they would not instantly vanish. The only other FPS game I ever played was Quake III: Arena on DC. I played it online... I was the worst player, but I still enjoyed the rush of firing weapons at sentinent targets even though I almost never hit anything. (That's not true... I think I played... Medal of Honor? on PSone... the first one... geez that game was stiff.)
Here's a double-standard: I can accept the context of violence as long as it takes place in a war setting YET I don't support RL wars. Or RL violence (excepting ofcourse old school ECW back-in-the-day). I'm very behind the times.... my interest in videogames for awhile was to try and get every one of the Final Fantasy games released for PSone. I also snagged several RPGs for said system... both Fear Effect games... both Parasite Eve games... two Tenchu games... pretty much sampling as much as I could.
But then I finally got around to buying all three GTA games for PS2. After playing MGS on PSone, MGS 2 on PS2, and MGS:TS on GC, I was honestly expecting these ever-evolving gameplay mechanics, I came to expect the OTHER games being released to have good play control. How disappointed I was. Where should I start? Your in-game map is this tiny little thing on the lower-left hand corner with little dots showing your destination. Kind of hard to see... And even though the games are free-roaming 3D games, they are MUCH more linear than, say, Silent Hill for PSone. And none of the GTA games controlled as well as SH. Through three games, the graphics are only improved ever-so-slightly. Looking at these games, it makes me think of watching an episode of COPS where for some reason the cameraman decided to goop up the lens with vaseline so the viewers would have almost no idea what the heck they were looking at.
I get it. GTA is a criminal fantasy. Vice City was what "Miami Vice" would have been if the main characters were criminals. You get to steal carjack... uh... in a way... you press a button & if you're near a car, you'll open a door & toss the driver on the ground, then get in. Um, that's a little too easy... But why would you steal a car? So you can run over some civilians? Go on a high-speed chase with the police? Crash the car in spectacular explosion? Well, yes, and no. Mostly you have missions. You have to go from point A to point B and the fastest way to do so is to in a stolen car.
GTA makes more sense to me than sports games or racing games... but I still scratch my head over "missions." I'm pretty sure as you advance in the game, your missions get more advanced. But I really felt no real incentive to playing the game. Carjacking, running people over, shooting at the police... those sort of things are fun for about half an hour for me.
No offense, but I had more fun playing Conker's Bad Fur Day on N64. (No, I didn't laugh my butt off at the singing pile of poop... I was more interested in the pissing on fire-demons part or the rodeo with the bull. Now that was a fun game. Furry animals? Yeah... but they swore, got drunk, and even incorporated some sexual humor in a very Monty Python way.
But lately I have been reading some articles of game magazines about how Congress is once again lash out against videogames because of.... GTA? Why wasn't there controversity about MGS 2? Oh... wait... that's a game about killing terrorists... perfectly acceptable. Or what about Resident Evil 4? That's a game where you mostly shoot nearly invulnerable Spanish peasants. Oh... wait... the hero is an undercover CIA agent... perfectly okay.
I wonder why only the crappy games seem to get publicity?
Yeah, I said it. The Grand Theft Auto series depresses me. It's probably one of the most accessible fantasy there is. Other fantasy activities may include: being a super hero, being a sports athlete, fighting orcs, or being a murderer. This last activity (atleast in the respect of the current state of Ultima Online is concerned, you have to be a highly skilled player with lots of in-game resources, and an "uber" character to accomplish this task. I guess I'm dated in referencing UO... you can also be a PK in the game "Fable."
The first game I played in which I could kill people in a realistic fashion was the SNES version of Wolfenstien 3D. You'd open a door, a bunch of Nazi soldiers in the next room would spot you and say "Halt." You just had to move backwards through the open door, wait for it to close. Then, shoot whoever was stupid enough to open the door. In this case: everyone of the bad guys. Sure, this game didn't have red pixels representing blood. But the thrill was still there. After you were done killing, just walk over the bodies that would lay there and, unlike any other game I had played at any time before, they would not instantly vanish. The only other FPS game I ever played was Quake III: Arena on DC. I played it online... I was the worst player, but I still enjoyed the rush of firing weapons at sentinent targets even though I almost never hit anything. (That's not true... I think I played... Medal of Honor? on PSone... the first one... geez that game was stiff.)
Here's a double-standard: I can accept the context of violence as long as it takes place in a war setting YET I don't support RL wars. Or RL violence (excepting ofcourse old school ECW back-in-the-day). I'm very behind the times.... my interest in videogames for awhile was to try and get every one of the Final Fantasy games released for PSone. I also snagged several RPGs for said system... both Fear Effect games... both Parasite Eve games... two Tenchu games... pretty much sampling as much as I could.
But then I finally got around to buying all three GTA games for PS2. After playing MGS on PSone, MGS 2 on PS2, and MGS:TS on GC, I was honestly expecting these ever-evolving gameplay mechanics, I came to expect the OTHER games being released to have good play control. How disappointed I was. Where should I start? Your in-game map is this tiny little thing on the lower-left hand corner with little dots showing your destination. Kind of hard to see... And even though the games are free-roaming 3D games, they are MUCH more linear than, say, Silent Hill for PSone. And none of the GTA games controlled as well as SH. Through three games, the graphics are only improved ever-so-slightly. Looking at these games, it makes me think of watching an episode of COPS where for some reason the cameraman decided to goop up the lens with vaseline so the viewers would have almost no idea what the heck they were looking at.
I get it. GTA is a criminal fantasy. Vice City was what "Miami Vice" would have been if the main characters were criminals. You get to steal carjack... uh... in a way... you press a button & if you're near a car, you'll open a door & toss the driver on the ground, then get in. Um, that's a little too easy... But why would you steal a car? So you can run over some civilians? Go on a high-speed chase with the police? Crash the car in spectacular explosion? Well, yes, and no. Mostly you have missions. You have to go from point A to point B and the fastest way to do so is to in a stolen car.
GTA makes more sense to me than sports games or racing games... but I still scratch my head over "missions." I'm pretty sure as you advance in the game, your missions get more advanced. But I really felt no real incentive to playing the game. Carjacking, running people over, shooting at the police... those sort of things are fun for about half an hour for me.
No offense, but I had more fun playing Conker's Bad Fur Day on N64. (No, I didn't laugh my butt off at the singing pile of poop... I was more interested in the pissing on fire-demons part or the rodeo with the bull. Now that was a fun game. Furry animals? Yeah... but they swore, got drunk, and even incorporated some sexual humor in a very Monty Python way.
But lately I have been reading some articles of game magazines about how Congress is once again lash out against videogames because of.... GTA? Why wasn't there controversity about MGS 2? Oh... wait... that's a game about killing terrorists... perfectly acceptable. Or what about Resident Evil 4? That's a game where you mostly shoot nearly invulnerable Spanish peasants. Oh... wait... the hero is an undercover CIA agent... perfectly okay.
I wonder why only the crappy games seem to get publicity?
