Narrative sophistication vs. open world in Grand Theft Auto IV

(Given the nature of the blogosphere, I probably need to establish up front that I gave "Grand Theft Auto IV" a very positive review. Not as much of a rave as most of these reviewers, but still very positive. So even though I'm going to discuss a problem in the game here, please don't start writing "Variety hates 'GTA IV.'" Take the time to read the review if you're interested in my overall opinion.)

Anyone who read my review of "Grand Theft Auto IV" may have noticed this paragraph since it was my one really substantial complaint about the game (my not so substantial complaint about the game is that the parodies on the radio are so stridently left wing and on-the-nose that they're completely unfunny):

“GTA IV’s” only fundamental problem, however, is that the world and the story have advanced so far past the gameplay. The ability to go anywhere and do anything was revolutionary in the early “GTA” titles, but sometimes feels awkward in a game with such well-crafted characters and stories. How can players seriously believe Niko’s on a date when his girlfriend doesn’t mind that he’s carrying a knife, walking her through a 5-foot-deep pond and getting in numerous car accidents? Why can a distinctive-looking illegal immigrant commit hundreds of carjackings and nobody seems to care? There are good gameplay-related answers, of course, but they still detract from the immersive realism that “GTA IV” otherwise creates.

I thought it was worth exploring this issue a little more. Dan Houser said in my interview with him last month (extended transcript here) that "GTA IV" has a more original and sophisticated story and characters than previous franchise entries because they should match the growing sophistication of the technology, graphics, physics, etc. that power the game.

When he said it, that made sense to me, but as it turns out, I don't think it holds true in an open-world game. As better technology makes it possible to do more things in an open world, that increasingly conflicts with well developed characters and plots.

Basically, you (aka Niko Bellic) can do a lot of crazy shit in "GTA IV." And you can do it really realistically. Cause mass traffic accidents; shoot cops; commit suicide off a tall building; jump in the Hudson River; stab random people; etc., etc.

It's all great fun. Except it's Niko Bellic doing these things. The same Niko Bellic who's involved in a fairly sophisticated plot with fairly well developed supporting characters. If you choose to do crazy shit in the sandbox of Liberty City, why doesn't it impact the story and the way people in Niko's life treat him? It's impossible to care about Niko's relationship with Michelle early in the game when she doesn't care if he stabs people or dunks her in the water gets in a dozen car accidents while on a date.  Roman may be a bit of a nutcase, but based on what I know of the character, I feel like he would care if his cousin Niko had killed a dozen innocent civilians with an uzi and carjacked 50 different vehicles in the past 24 hours.

Technically speaking, of course I understand why the story and characters can't react to the infinite number of things that players can do in an open world. Artistically speaking, however, there is a fundamental conflict between sandbox and well developed narrative. When the player has opportunities to do anything, the events that the developers make happen no longer hold together in a tonally, thematically, or even logically consistent way. It's the equivalent of a novel where all the even chapters are written by a professional writer and the odd chapters are left blank for the reader to fill in with any random thought that pops into his or her head.

"GTA IV" has the most opportunities for realistic mayhem of any game in the series as well as the best characters and story. Which is why this "open world vs. narrative sophistication" conflict is more pronounced and more disturbing than any previous game in the series. Which is why I gave "GTA IV" a very good review, but not a rave.

(Thoughts? Please discuss in the comments and/or write on your own blog if you have one.)

Comments

[Stone Bytes]

"Basically, you (aka Niko Bellic) can do a lot of crazy shit in "GTA IV." And you can do it really realistically. Cause mass traffic accidents; shoot cops; commit suicide off a tall building; jump in the Hudson River; stab random people; etc., etc."

You may do it more or less realistically, but the acts themselves, the context and the way the world replies to them is all safe realistic or believable.
Besides, would it be surprising that most of the examples you pick could already be done before, when the game was less realistic than it attempted to be?
Not really. Things haven't moved much, and to keep the franchise fresh, some "stuff" is added.

One thing that keeps me away from GTA IV for the moment (besides the puke worthy buzz) is the dichotomy at hand, since I like my games to be complete, fluid and work as a whole, not as an ensemble of pieces which don't mesh together.
It's like someone tried to merge Philadelphia with Carmageddon. Sort of.
There's no working magic design combination here. Why pretend making a realistic story, if your character can do completely insane stuff?
On this point, GTA IV is a failure in its attempt at mixing water and grease.
Both are probably great separately, but they don't blend.
You probably have one of the greatest examples of designers putting the stuff in their game because they can, and largely because it would be easy to gross more revenues from a GTA than from a new IP.

A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.

Probably a fine illustration here.

[Measure]

Perhaps the next breakthrough in open world gaming will be developers creating a way to reconcile the two gameplay modes (do anything vs. following the story).

Just offhand, I can think of one way to do it... If the game keep track of how many laws you break, you could have that variable effect how characters react to you in the story.

Perhaps, for instance, Michelle could react negatively to you breaking laws on a date, while another dateable character could be turned on by it.

Of course, if you add a way to negatively effect your reputation, you'll have to add ways for the player to positively affect his rep as well...

[Charles]

Dead Rising used a timer to keep the narrative flow going evenin an open world. Unfortunately few could get past the save system, so they didn't seem to notice the interesting experiment that was going on.

It seems to me that GTA IV would benefit from a story that was happening while the player was playing, and they just had to be there at the right time if they wanted to be part of it. If not, or if they failed, they would still have a huge city to mess around in.

In other words, one giant story mission that players can do over and over again, instead of a lot of little story missions that don't jive with the rest of the actions of the player.

[Ishtiaque]

Well, I think keeping the open world option is a good thing, cause people might get bored of completing the linear storyline missions. Also, if I wanted a good story based 3rd person shooter, there are other games...maybe not too many, but there are. I remember "Urban Chaos", a very old game where you would get to play as a rookie female cop. That game had promise, and the game world was somewhat open. But the game soon became boring because the missions were too similar. So I guess you can think Nico is taking a break from his usual life when he's causing the open world mayhem. I love the GTA series because I can always take a break from the things "I am supposed to do".

By the way, I am a PC gamer, and haven't really played GTA IV yet. Waiting patiently for the PC version!

[Frank]

I think you're approaching the fundamental problem that games have with stories. It's the same thing with all games, but even more so with open world games. When the player has a huge horizon of things to do, but they don't affect the other characters of the game in any way, the "story" loses it's edge.

The more the player meddles with the narrative structure of the game, the more the story (of what's left of it) weakens. On the other end of the scope you have the nicely written and acted cutscenes, but they have nothing to do with the game itself.

There's hundreds of little moments and scenes in GTA4 that would have worked better in a proper film or a book (with proper structure and pacing), but in the game due to player's actions they are left in the shadow.

But I don't think any of that comes as a surprise though. It's the paradox of games and stories that we sadly have to live with.