Separator

Grand Theft Auto's biggest problem: Cars

26583_1404714564368_1427496717_31101969_389938_n
Monday, November 07, 2011

The first trailer for Grand Theft Auto 5 came out last week and it brings up a lot of questions. Who is that mysterious narrator? How many pointless items will we be collecting? What new and exciting dick jokes will Rockstar come up with? However, the biggest question in my mind is:

Cars, again?


This probably isn't the kind of "trafficking" you expected in a crime game.

I don't want to poop in anyone's fish tank (figuratively or literally), but the prospect of driving around a sprawling urban setting doesn't really do it for me anymore. In the three years since Grand Theft Auto 4 came out, the open-world genre has expanded and evolved. Games like Infamous, Assassin's Creed 2, and Batman: Arkham City have all but eliminated vehicles from the equation in favor of more interesting and enjoyable ways to get around.

The genre that Grand Theft Auto popularized is leaving it behind, and here's why.

 

I've come to associate Rockstar with unchecked world-sprawl and uninspired responses to it. Sure, it's more convenient to call a cab than it is to drive. But is it more fun? A fast-travel system should save you time, not spare you boredom; for me, GTA4's taxis fall squarely into the second group.

It's especially telling that the Infamous games and Arkham City don't even offer fast-travel -- climbing, gliding, and grinding alongside an elevated train are huge parts of what make them great. Missions have to do most of the heavy lifting fun-wise, but players should be having fun even when they're not advancing the main plot. I'm not just talking about sidequests: I mean basics like getting around the world.

What do Cole McGrath, Ezio Auditore, and Batman have in common? For starters, they've never stood next to a flaming ruin that used to be their car in the middle of Bumblefuck, San Andreas and wondered how the hell they were going to get home. Their worlds are manageable and their means of traversing them are engaging.

I was playing Arkham City the other day, traveling from one side of the map to the other. In the middle of my grappling and gliding and being all "I'm Batman," I received a button prompt for a Glide Kick.

"Sure," I thought. "I'm Batman, after all, and Batman would totally take a break to kick this guy." So I pressed the button and Batman swooped down and kicked the random thug into a wall. Seconds later, I was back on course, and one more criminal had learned that sometimes justice tastes like your own teeth.

I've never had an experience like that with the Grand Theft Auto series because I focus most of my attention on not destroying my vehicle. In the new batch of open-world games, developers tie mobility to character abilities, not fickle and explosion-prone machines that may or may not be there when you need them most. In other words, the character is the vehicle, and I'd rather feel like a superhero than a guy stuck in traffic any day.


Cole McGrath is physically incapable of getting into a car. Ask him if he cares.

Am I suggesting Grand Theft Auto get rid of cars? Of course not -- that would be stupid and also antithetical to the title of the game. But given the choice between driving through a massive open world in a vehicle that, let's face it, will eventually catch fire (probably with me in it) and swooping quickly and effortlessly through the air, grinding along power lines, or, hell, just running in a fun way, I know where my time is going.

Who needs a Batmobile when you have a Grapnel Boost?

 
Problem? Report this post
EVAN KILLHAM'S SPONSOR
Comments (16)
Default_picture
November 07, 2011

You know, I never thought of it that way. In retrospect, you're absolutely correct.

The means in which most players travel in contemporary open-world games completely eclipses the outdated efforts of vehicular travel like GTA. Bare in mind it doesn't lessen my desire for the game any, but it is an excellent point about the inevitable progression of the genre.

Waahhninja
November 07, 2011

Red Dead Redemption is the last Rockstar game that I will enjoy just rambling around in. I don't have time to carefully maneuver through traffic to try and get to a checkpoint anymore.

I probably won't be playing GTA5. I don't care how many people say that I owe it to myself to try it. I've taken the bait with every release and I always get hung up on collectathon sidequests. There's just too much to do that's more interesting than whatever cockamamie story they've tossed together from spare parts in the "jaded American Dream" bin.

I've learned my lesson and I'm not going back.

Rsz_1magus2
November 08, 2011

There are a few problems with your argument, the first one you actually pointed out in the last paragraph.  The name of the game being grand theft AUTO.  The other issues I have with your article are that;

A) There were no automobiles in Renaissance Italy, so that point is moot.

B) The protagonists in GTA are not super heroes, so grinding cablings and grappling around the city is entirely out of the question.

My favorite thing to do in GTA, by far, is driving around the real world setting.  I would much rather compete in a race then murder a bunch of innocent people, or hunt for a million packages. I think your article would be much better if titled “I would rather play open world super hero games”.

26583_1404714564368_1427496717_31101969_389938_n
November 08, 2011

A) I don't see how the absense of cars in Renaissance Italy renders my point moot. It forced developers to try and come up with something better than cars, and they succeeded (in my opinion).

B) My point (and you mentioned this) is that by being called "Grand Theft Auto," the games are locked into using vehicles. I think this is to their detriment, because other games have put cars aside in favor of more elegant and fun options.

It's cool that you like the driving. Personally, I think we've moved beyond it (at least, the way Rockstar does it). I think it's stagnant design.

Pict0079-web
November 08, 2011

I hate to disagree, but I love driving. I still think we owe a lot to GTA3, simply for introducing a more mature open-world gaming style. It also made driving more fun than it really is.

I read a Zelda philosophy book about the nature of the instant-travel function in The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker. If you think about it, there are two ways to sail around the ocean. Link can either take the long sailing route, or he can use the Ballad of Gales to take a shortcut to four different points in the whole ocean.

There are two differing consequences. If a person sails the long way, it will take longer. However, that person will have the opportunity to explore more of the unique landscapes and find more treasures on each island. On the other hand, a person could use the Ballad of Gales to take a quicker route. This will get Link to his destination faster, but he will miss many of the unique vistas on each island along the way.

Of course, this is an outdated example, considering that the ocean didn't offer many interesting sights to see. However, it was a game design element that posed a dilemma about the difficult of the new open-world environments. Some games are simply great because they immerse people in these unique environments. The fast-travel, on the other hand, often acts as a handicap for game designers who create bland environments.

I actually hate the new generation of games, because they simply cannot provide enough a wide enough variety of environments. The mature games especially suffer from the habit of inanely repeating the same super-emphasized shadow effects. At least the Metal Gear Solid series gave me a more unique visual style based on the time period and the locale of each section of the game. Heck, even the Grand Theft Auto series had a unique way of making a satire out of metropolitan cities. I want to explore these areas to rob the fast-food restaurants or to tag the entire city with graffiti, because it has that colorful, bustling urban environment.

Really, I should have a bigger reason to enjoy my open-world journey. I shouldn't have to fast-travel with grappling hooks and other tools because of some lame excuse of an environment.

Robsavillo
November 08, 2011

I don't think there's an inherent conflict between fast travel and regular travel in open-world games. Developers can use both without succumbing to the pitfalls you've mentioned.

In Dark Souls, you have both regular foot travel and fast travel (via warping), but fast travel doesn't open up until late in the game; therefore, you've been forced to travese the slow path the first time, but you're given the convenience of fast travel later on so you can get to where you want to be more quickly.

And you'd be hard pressed to call any of the environments in Dark Souls bland or monotonous. There's a wide variety of unique locales to explore.

Pict0079-web
November 08, 2011

Sure, developers can do both. My beef is that not everybody tries to at least make the environment look a little more acceptable or distinguishable. I still have issues with some developers repeating the same map style in the fashion of Fallout 3's subway, or Mass Effect 1's repetition of the same maps for the mine shaft, the drifting spaceship, the underground colony, and the land freighter.

Then again, I haven't played the newest generation of open-world games. I hope developers at least remembered not to repeat the same old crap all over again.

And Dark Souls still sounds great. I keep telling myself that I'm going to rent it eventually, but then I keep remember all those college class projects that I have to work on. I'm getting there...eventually.

Bmob
November 08, 2011

I wholeheartedly disagree. The vehicles are the source of most fun in any GTA. Without cars, you wouldn't be able to chain explosions from one traffic light to the next. You wouldn't be able to drive half an island in a driveby duel against a random group of thugs, and hell, who drives on the road anyway?

Default_picture
November 08, 2011

It's great that we can have opinions...and though I dont totally agree I see your point. I must say though that I thoroughly enjoy riding around sometimes just listening to the radio and watching the city live. That being said I dont see the way of travel as a problem but more the lack of options. In all games I think how you like to play affects the experience you will have. I like having choices, one day I may want to drive a vehicle and the next I might like strapping on a jet-pack and flying over the city. Either way I'm excited about the title and cant wait for it to come out.

Default_picture
November 09, 2011

Amen.  I actually referenced this article in my latest blog post, hope you don't mind: http://nftnf.blogspot.com/2011/11/30-day-video-game-challenge-2-your.html

Photo3-web
November 09, 2011

Did you remove it, Jack?

Default_picture
November 09, 2011

Whoops, sorry - had changed the blog URL but not edited this comment.  This link should work now.

26583_1404714564368_1427496717_31101969_389938_n
November 09, 2011

Nice post!

I'm sure Just Cause 2 would have made my list if I'd played it.

Pict0079-web
November 09, 2011

That actually puts this article into perspective. I loved hoarding a collection of rare cars in GTA: San Andreas. It's sad that GTA4 failed to bring that same level of enjoyment. I kept thinking about buying it, but one of my friends still prefers San Andreas for many good reasons.

Well, I guess I'll rent it, just to see how the gameplay shifted.

Img_1019
November 09, 2011
Great article. I love getting around the world in Just Cause and Batman, and I hate it in GTA. They really need to make driving more fun (or fun at all).
Sp_a0829
November 10, 2011

I guess that this is the thing that makes these games so boring to me... I'm way too used to play skillful assassins or cape crusaders that I don't see the point of playing an ordinary guy... I play that role everyday!!!

You must log in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.