Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is out and I have clocked up 4 hours on it already. The Grand Theft Auto games for PS2 are by far the greatest games ever. I would go so far as to say they are the greatest entertainment ever. They have led the way in the gaming world in showing how games can be a much richer narrative entertainment form than movies and, in many cases, books. The sense these games give the player of being involved in a story are overwhelming and San Andreas has so much to do, from exciting story missions, to going to the gym and eating that reality, gaming and stories merge into an almost complete whole. Another couple of iterations of the GTA franchise, coupled with next generation consoles will see these games reaching that whole.
The only concern I have is that the GTA franchise is firmly entrenched in the Gangster genre. The games are incredibly violent and morally corrupt. I don't really have a problem with that, I love the Gangster genre in all forms of art and it really isn't a problem, so long as mature adults are the only ones exposed to it. Beating random strangers to death for a bit of cash to buy a tatoo is abhorrent to me in reality, but in the virtual world it's fun, partly as it is still abhorrent. But no-one really gets hurt and the random strangers in the GTA games are mostly designed to be obnoxious cariactures. The GTA universe is designed to be a hell of sorts, thus the rules of morallity are very specifically diabollical. I don't know why, but somehow that makes it all OK, in my mind. Somehow, the structure of the universe doesn't cross the line.
But it has got me thinking. These are games which condone criminal behaviour in the contraints of the "rules of the narrative". You are role playing a criminal. It doesn't cross the line, then, to act like a criminal. You wouldn't condemn Robert De Niro for playing criminals in his films. However, imagine the next GTA game put you in the role of a terrorist. GTA: Palestrael. Where the main character uses terrorism, rather than organised crime, to further his/her political narrative agenda. In my mind, especially in the current climate, that would cross the line. In abstract, organised crime and terrorism are morally and ethically the same. In practice, not so much as certain morals and ethics exist within both. In the current GTA games, you can play the story of the game without necessarily harming "innocents". All the story missions are against "the bad guys" who are always, in the narrative sense, "badder" than the main character. You could design a terrorism-based narrative where innocent casualities could be avoided in exactly the same way. Yet, in my view, this still crosses the line. I am not sure why. Perhaps it shouldn't. Yet, I think this issue exists in other narrative forms. Hollywood seems to agree that it would cross the line. I don't know of a movie that has terrorists front and centre in the same way as the Gangster genre has criminals front and centre.
Except for Star Wars, of course.
2 comments:
I can think of a few films in which terrorists are the lead characters.
'Rebel', a 1970 film featuring a pre-Rocky, post-porn Sylvester Stallone has Sly as a part of a Black Panther-style operation planning a bombing. The exact plot details escape me, my copy is Somewhere In The Archives. But, certainly, it is a film featuring, and showcasing, terrorists.
Then again, what about Antonioni's 'Zabriskie Point' - with long opening monologues concerning the pros and cons of violent action, terrorism, and a protagonist who wanders off into Death Valley after his 'radical' friends prove to be unwilling to enter into violent confrontation?
Or, consider Rambo III - continuing the Stallone theme - in which our man Sly spends 90 minutes helping the Taliban fight off the Ruskies. Oh, sorry. Not the Taliban. The 'resistance'.
G.T.A is morally degenerate, yes - but it is, above all else, a satire. I don't find it anywhere near as disturbing as Rockstar's 'Manhunt' - which was designed to showcase the fun one can have killing other people in escalatingly brutal ways. I find GTA a terribly witty, clever game - it lampoons genre conventions within the framework of the game's format. Perhaps not so much with San Andreas - but certainly with Vice City. So, in my mind, that defuses the impact of GTA's savagery - Rockstar's relentless winking at the audience provides a buffer between the game's reality and your own moral reactions. There is the fact, though, that GTA really is only as violent as you want it to be - you don't HAVE to roam around with a shotgun killing random people and beating their dead bodies.
Still. I've put in 10 1/2 hours. Hot damn, it is good. Best game ever? I'm not sure I'd go that far. Best game of the PS2's lifespan? Yup.
David
http://www.metalcity.org
Thanks for the heads up, I'll certainly attempt to catch those movies. The Rambos I have seen, but they don't wear their terrorist credentials on their sleeves. I am curious whether there are movies that focus on terrorists in the anti-hero/gangster genre (like Scarface)...but anyway.
I agree that GTA covers its bases by being a parody and above all a comedy. Its wickedly dark sense of humour is why I love the series so much. The Bonnie & Clyde levels with Catalina (or whatever her name was) are an absolute highlight, as is the persistent phone calls of "PIG!" later on. I think what I was trying to explore in the post above was whether the same mood and narrative tactics would work for a terrorism game, now or ever. Personally, I think they would, but my world view is wickedly dark.
As for Manhunt, never played it. I am sick to death with every game being a shoot-em-up, no matter how creative the shooting and killing-em-up gets. Even in GTA. I yawn everytime I get a go-there-kill-that-guy, blow up that truck mission. The great thing about the GTA series is that those kind of missions have been gradually becoming less of the focus of the games. The more creative missions, like the last of the Zero missions (the mini battle field) and the burning down of the weed plantation are much more interesting, in my view. I even enjoy the silly dating and dancing stuff, simply as it is a refreshing change from having to kill everything in sight.
Also, I disagree that you can go throught the game without inflicting meaningless carnage on the innocents of the game, its too much fun at times.
And don't get me started on construction workers pulling me out of the damned bulldozer. They ALL paid for THAT outrage!!!
Post a Comment