Why all Grand Theft Auto apologias are bullshit

[prog]

Or anyway, most of them; I roll my eyes every time someone puts forth the argument that you only kill hookers and run over little old ladies if you want to play the game that way.

This statement is literally true, but it carries the false implication that the game offers you alternative interactions with these non-player characters. Lookie, here are your two options for communicating with any of the random people walking around the game world:

• Ignore them

• Beat / maim / kill them

That's it. The controller doesn't have a "talk" button, but it has an array of buttons dedicated to punching, shooting, and breaking into things.

Your character in GTA is Frankenstein's monster. He wants to talk to the little girl with the flower, but he just doesn't have the facility, and ends up drowning her instead, because his action-range is so limited. Sad.

Comments

[jonny-law.livejournal.com]

Again, my point was that a flight sim also limits you to basically moving around and performing mayhem. It is the player's choice as to how the game is played.

I think your example of the ramp underscores my point. The design of GTA does not encourage the approach "Ooh, look at that ramp. I bet you could beat/maim/kill random people." The design of the game encourages the approach "Ooh, look at that ramp. I bet you could ignore the random people/explore."

I will grant that the carjacking and auto theft aspects in GTA are fundamentally different than pushing a button to start over in a new plane in a flight sim. If you want to push the point, I could argue that a player could choose to only take parked cars that are unoccupied or use a cheat code to create a car, rather than engaging in carjacking. However, after that the exploration vs. mayhem decision still rests with the player.

But I may have missed your point. If your point is limited to the fact that interactions with the non-player characters are limited to a) Ignore them or b) Beat / maim / kill them, then I agree with your assessment.
However, your allusion to Frankenstein's monster seems to suggest that, as you see it, the only way to play the game is by interactions with the non-player characters, which is limited to b). My point is that a) includes the exploration aspect of the game and does support a reasonable argument that there are different ways to play the game, ways other than killing hookers and running over little old ladies.