... I take the lives of a few to protect the lives of many. I commit acts of war to preserve the greater peace. I take no joy in killing, but make no mistake; I'll do what needs to be done. Because it's my job. It's my duty. My name is Sam Fisher, and I am a Splinter Cell.
I hope they keep the driving, loved how they changed it in GTA 4.
The GTA 4 DLC had mid-mission check-points, right?
... I take the lives of a few to protect the lives of many. I commit acts of war to preserve the greater peace. I take no joy in killing, but make no mistake; I'll do what needs to be done. Because it's my job. It's my duty. My name is Sam Fisher, and I am a Splinter Cell.
You're not reading properly. GTA's differences are like night and day. It's like they were writing the script, went "We've gone 5 minutes without making a dick joke, quick throw one in!" and deliberately went out of their way to do so. I never said that you can't inject humour into a serious game (actually I specifically did say that you could do that), but you can't toss two extremes into one story and claim it works exceptionally well. Not when Rockstar/the fanboys like to play up how "mature" it is.
Althea's example illustrates the point: if there's no context for the childishness, it doesn't work. It isn't cohesive. That's what happened IMO in GTA IV - they went out of their way to put it in without it being really appropriate. Roman isn't so much a "fuck up sidekick" as a ridiculous night and day change with overused one-liners. Roman is great when his character sticks with the story, but when the "BIG AMERICAN TEE TEES" lines start coming out, it falls apart.
Yes.
To put it in context:
Bulletstorm works as it is. It's full of dick jokes, rape allusions and so on. That is what it is, and as a product it works. If you take those lines out and put them into, say, Halo or Call of Duty, it doesn't work. Why? Because they lose their context, and as such they lose their humour and go from humorously tasteless into... something I don't have words for.
Roman's character works best during story missions involving his failings, but when Rockstar try to emulate that elsewhere - such as the phone calls - it goes from compelling to irritating. They make Roman outstay his welcome very quickly, and that's why people hate him. You're supposed to be on Roman's side to some degree. You're supposed to want him to wake up and stop getting himself into trouble, but that never happens. You end up wanting him dead just to stop him ringing you every five minutes and shouting "COUSIN!" in your ear.
Best Roman moment for me was when I "accidentally" pushed him down some stairs.
Last edited by Althea; 11-04-2012 at 01:37 PM.
You're not listening, man! That line is so profound. It's a beautiful statement summing up foreigner nativity. There's an underlying childlike vulnerability there which makes Roman one of the most human characters in the whole game, and one I can easily identify with. Hooray for Teetees!
Last edited by Drake Sigar; 11-04-2012 at 02:32 PM.
Also the streotypes that game had didnt really help you cant really do a mature character storyline when every single character is some kind of stereotype so you dont believe in them.
Well, what do you expect? GTA games are full of stereotypes over the years
I think you can actually, so long as the stereotypes aren't entirely for comedic effect. But since Rockstar apparently only know one form of humour (bare-bones sledgehammer parody) it doesn't work so well.
Which is why I liked RDR more (even though I didn't get to finish it): it still had humour but by stripping out the jarring swap between serious tone and "TEETEES LOL" it made for a much more consistent experience.