In all seriousness I think Nico's story was far too serious for a cartoony game like Grand Theft Auto.
Nico is a kind-of nice guy who doesn't generally want to kill or harm anyone yet just like other GTA games he's running around blowing shit up and killing people. I really don't get it.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
ludonarrative dissonance m8
You could say the same thing for Victor Vance.
Grand theft auto 4 was fantastic, I underestimated it.
Yeah, you need a protagonist that can act crazy without it seeming too weird.
It was hard taking Nico seriously when he talked about wanting to stop his life of violence, when the player could then start shooting people left and right.
It didn't feel like you were really in control of Nico, since he said stuff that clashed too much with what you were doing.
I think you kind of missed the point regarding Niko.
He's neither a good man nor a bad man, he's just a depressed immigrant who kills because it's the only way he knows how to solve problems.
>I skipped all the cutscenes and dialogue: The Thread
Killing that random woman that showed up in a mission or two was the far better choice than killing game staple cousin.
Was there and if there was, what was the moral of GTA IV?
Did you even play the game? Niko was a killer and he knew it and he came to LC to kill a traitor, only reason you thought he was nice because he had he most depth out of any character in GTA...
"I need money, it pays, I'm good at it, I don't care if I live or die"
That the American dream is hiding behind crime, corruption and deceit.
Being greedy makes you miserable.
Bowling is a fun, social, healthy recreational activity.
Never pick up when your relatives are calling
This.
Niko is what you make of him, really.
youtube.com
Theme was top tier
Life is shit, the things you want aren't as good as you think, and your life plans can change in an instant.
you can dress a russian but he will still be russian
Your cousin is an obnoxious cunt
He's Serbian
The story and setting of GTA IV is totally better than V's
Yes, this. This is why I love Trevor so much. He's the first character in gta history that actually seems like he'd go on homicidal rampages. I really feel like Trevor Is the debs putting a mirror up to the players and asking "this is what you wanted, right"
Fuck I love gta 5. It gets way too much hate here. It knew exactly what it was and it nailed it. It felt like the culmination of everything rockstar had done before.
the moral is BIG AMERICAN TIDDIES
anything soviet is russian
Yeah, but if you don't look up the results of the choices, you don't know that anyone's going to die during it. The fundamental dilemma behind the choice is dealing with an old an untrustworthy foe in the hope that the result will jumpstart a better life in LC for Niko and Roman, or sticking to Niko's revenge-driven mentality that he's had since the beginning of the game and go after the man who wronged you. This is pretty much all you have to work with regarding the choice.
Personally, I think Deal is the better ending story-wise, and Revenge is the better ending gameplay-wise. On another note, if I could change the endings a bit, I would have Deal pay $500000 instead of $250000 and Revenge pay nothing; it goes better with the revelations Niko comes to when he finally kills Darko Brevic. This would also give more of an incentive to pick Deal.
>what was the moral of GTA IV?
Always put on your seat belt and look both ways before crossing the street.
>dude it's so out of character for Master Chief to go around randomly killing marines, it's so not like him
*devs
I'd like to add.. I see people complaining that Michael was a cry baby and Franklin was bland. They were but that's only a problem when characters have these traits because the writing sucks. Rock star knew exactly what they were doing. Franklin and Michael are both aware of their shit personalities and the people around them are too. Just because you don't like a characters personality doesn't mean they're poorly written.
Crime doesn't pay.
It doesn't even have to go as far as Trevor.
Someone like CJ, Luis or Michael aren't lunatics, but you aren't surprised to see them be violent.
The thing is though, the player's rampages aren't supposed to be canon or play a factor in the story. It would be interesting if they did, but they don't, and never have. It's not Niko who decides to kill countless civilians, it's you. In those moments, Niko is simply the player avatar rather than his own person with backstory and depth. But I guess this still goes back to OP's point that a character like Niko isn't really suited to a series whise main appeal is running around and mindlessly killing people. Still doesn't stop GTA IV's story from being pretty well-written and good though, imo.
The moral had something to do with greed and betrayal. The takeaway is you should put your friends before your money, because if you throw them away to gain everything, you'll realize too late that you are nothing.
YELLOW CAR
Itt: retards who can't comprehend gameplay and story segregation.
KILL MANY PEOPLE
I'm too drunk to drive. I might hurt someone.
I think it's debatable how canon the player's rampages are. I mean, they can get money and weapons from them, that they can then use in canon story missions - where did the weapons/money appear from, if not from the rampages?
And if you drive/walk around with a date and start shooting or driving into people, the dates will react which will have consequences.
But I get your point. It's still a mismatch of letting the player run wild and then wanting to tell the player what the protagonist really feels like.
I like GTA 5's protagonists overall; its just that I wished they were more fleshed out in the main story overall. A lot of the additional depth and backstory of Michael, Franklin, and Trevor is relegated to the hangouts and the side content rather than in the main story like they should.
For example, you have to smoke weed with Franklin in order to find out about the sense of self-hatred he felt ever since his mom died to crack, and even that only gives a little snippet as to his character. His exclamations during shootouts, like "They should just pop me and get it over with." also hint at this. His backstory is fleshed out in the tow truck property mission. Michael's flesh-out moments are during the shrink sessions, and they show his character development, but they are all missable except the final one where you kill the shrink. Trevor's new life in Sandy Shores after the FIB setup is only really touched upon in the stranger missions there.
I felt like GTA 5's story had a lot of potential, but was wasted. 69 missions weren't enough. At least for me, if they couldn't flesh out Tommy beyond his quips in VC in 35 missions, how were they going to flesh out 3 guys in 69?
I would agree with you, but often during rampages all protagonists often comment or say things when they do this sort of thing.
"I don't want this to get very ugly..."
- Nico Bellic
Slavs are subhuman.
Serbia wasn't part of the soviet states you mong
>nico
>NICO
>It's NIKO!
That's an interesting point, though I would argue that there is no clear canonical amount of weapons and ammo Niko is supposed to have. The pistol is the only weapon we see him brandish in cutscenes, as far as I remember, and the other high end weapons are usualky acquired from drops during the missions. And regarding money, the canonical max amount of money Niko is supposed to have is the sum of the mission payouts, as all other sources are usually due to RNG. And, in GTA 4, Niko's canon love interests are Michelle, who you normally only date once, and Kate, who you never date during the story at all. So I would argue that the dates in general are non-canon in regards to the story. Overall, it's a complicated issue, I agree.
I think that Niko's exclamations there, actually aid his characterization; he delivers his morbid humor in a very detached and apathetic manner, which fits his character: a person who's killed for so long that he simply does not feel anything for it anymore; it's just a thing he does to survive.
>In all seriousness I think Nico's story was far too serious for a cartoony game like Grand Theft Auto.
>not playing pic related
kys
...
>kys
Do you watch LeafyIsHere when you get home from school or some shit?
Nah
10/10 squat
I like it that you don't actually kill innocents unless you REALLY put your back into it.
They'll lie on the floor grasping at their wounds until the paramedics show up which I enjoy.
You either have to pump them full of lead or headshot them if you REALLY want to kill someone.
I wish more games would let you take the nearly-lethal approach instead of full-on murder.
Oh God. Imagine if they made a Bully sequel released around the same time as GTA IV and Red Dead Redemption.
How would that game fair?
I think that gtaiv is the best story wise and the best gta behind vice city.
Good point
For me it felt like Niko was a really good character that somehow mistakenly got put into a GTA game instead of whatever else he was originally planned for.
Niko would make a good TellTale protag
>"Life is complicated. I killed people, smuggled people, sold people. Perhaps here, thing will be different"
The moral is that the past will follow you everywhere. He scaped his homeland to do things different in America, but all his problems followed him there. And in the end, his past kill one of his love ones.