1352: Critical Urgency

I can't remember if I've talked about Velocity here before, so here I am talking about Velocity.

Velocity, in case you've never come across it before, is a game from the Brighton-based indie developer FuturLab. It began its life as a PlayStation Minis title for PS3 and PSP, then was subsequently ported to Vita with numerous enhancements as Velocity Ultra. So positive was the reception to the first game, it seems, that the team at FuturLab is currently in the process of putting together a sequel — a sequel that's looking rather fab, if the early version I had the good fortune to play at the recent <a href="http://www.usgamer.net/articles/egx-turning-up-the-velocity" target="_blank">Eurogamer Expo</a> is anything to go by.

But I want to talk about the original today, or rather Velocity Ultra. I reviewed Velocity Ultra a while back for USgamer and enjoyed it a lot, but I must confess that in the process of reviewing it, I didn't make it through every little bit of content it had to offer — largely because doing so would have taken significantly longer than I had time for, and also because I'd already seen a lot of it in Velocity's previous incarnation as a PlayStation Minis title.

I've been going back to clean up what I missed in the game recently, though, and I'm reminded of what a fantastic game it is. Beginning as what appears to be a relatively straightforward top-down shooter, the game gradually evolves, changes and grows in complexity as it progresses; firstly, you get the ability to teleport over short distances (including through walls); then you get the ability to drop telepods at strategic points in the level in order to teleport over long distances and take alternative routes. By the time you get through all 50 of the game's main levels, you're practically playing a different game.

Things are mixed up along the way, too. Sometimes you'll have levels that are filled with enemies; other times they'll be complex maps with multiple paths. Other times still you'll have a very tight time limit and have to get through as quickly as possible. Different types of level require different strategies.

Where the truly addictive gameplay in Velocity comes in, though, is medal-chasing. Upon completion of a level, you're ranked according to how many survivors you rescued, how many points you scored and how quickly you successfully completed the level. Attain the highest accolade in all of these categories without dying once and you'll earn a "perfect" medal, and it's chasing these "perfects" that is so ridiculously addictive. The reason for this is that the difficulty of achieving the goals is pitched just perfectly; it's always just tantalisingly out of reach rather than seemingly impossible. Pretty much anyone with a good handle on the mechanics will be able to attain at least a few Perfects along the way, though it does get significantly more difficult as the levels become more complex.

And then there are the secret levels. Secret levels! I can't remember the last modern game I played that had secret levels, and yet here they are in Velocity, unlocked through getting your tiny Quarp Jet into places you wouldn't normally expect it to go, usually as a result of checking the map and spotting something out of place. There are a further 20 secret levels on top of the 50 main levels, and not all of them use the standard game mechanics. There's a 10-level Thrust-inspired minigame, for example; there's a twist on FuturLab's earlier game Coconut Dodge; there's even a version of Snake. Successfully contend with all those and you have the incredibly challenging but rewarding and addictive "Red Zone" and "Blue Zone" levels in which time limits are tight, the pathways tighter and the slightest clipping of a wall will destroy you.

I was delighted that the upcoming Velocity 2X felt so much like the first Velocity when I played it at Eurogamer Expo — and particularly pleased that the brand new sections where you get out of your ship and run around for some platforming sections make use of pretty much the same mechanics, with the only real difference being that you're now affected by gravity. I'm really looking forward to playing the sequel, but in the meantime, I've got a whole bunch of Perfect medals to try and attain, so if you'll excuse me I'm going to challenge a few more before I go to sleep.

1350: Open-World Ridiculosity

As you'll know if you've been reading recently, I finished Grand Theft Auto V the other day, and have approximately 75% on the completion-o-meter. Once I got back from Eurogamer Expo today, I thought I'd fire it up and specifically piss around in the open world rather than doing anything structured. (Okay, I cleaned up a couple of Strangers and Freaks missions, but aside from that… yeah.)

I'm pleased to confirm that Grand Theft Auto V's open-world freeform silliness is possibly the best it's ever been. In about an hour or two of play, I tripped over and rolled all the way down a mountain without dying; had a police shootout at a truck stop (where I did die, sadly); successfully landed on the roof of a car park at the airport by using a billboard as a jump ramp; successfully leapt onto a passing train (and then fell off while attempting to climb down and hijack it); inadvertently attracted the attention of the police and decided to run up the steepest face of a mountain, surviving quite a while and single-handedly taking down six helicopters before finally tripping over, rolling all the way down the mountain and failing to survive this time; cycled all the way from one end of the map to the other; and a few other things besides.

I'm happy that the idea of "I wonder if I can do that?" has survived intact from Grand Theft Auto III; many was the night back in university when drunken incarnations of me and my friend Sam would get home after a cheap night at Poundstretcher or Lennon's and cause chaos in Liberty City until the small hours. It's a concept that I haven't felt nearly as strongly in the more recent Grand Theft Auto titles, though I don't doubt it's there.

And it's a different feeling to Saints Row's open-world mayhem. Saints Row is very much a map with Things to Do scattered across it, clearly signposted for your reference. Grand Theft Auto, meanwhile — particularly in V's case — provides you with a map filled with cool and interesting stuff, but doesn't signpost a significant amount of it. It's not all "activities", either, in GTA's case; in some instances, it's just breathtaking views, or impressively detailed locales, or the location of a hidden vehicle.

Both approaches very much have a place in modern gaming culture, but it should be evident that Saints Row and Grand Theft Auto are not the same game, and have not been for a very long time. In the case of Saints Row IV in particular, the two have diverged sufficiently to pretty much be different genres; Saints Row IV is now an open-world superhero game, while Grand Theft Auto V is a more realistic (albeit skewed) look at modern society. Saints Row is self-consciously kooky, silly and funny; Grand Theft Auto's humour can be just as obvious, but it's not pushed to the forefront of the experience in the same way as it is in Saints Row; it's just part of the experience.

This isn't to say that either approach is "wrong," of course; I've played both games and really enjoyed them both. The difference is that after I finished Saints Row IV's story I didn't really feel the need to continue exploring the open world — over a thousand collectible items is just too many, yo — whereas this evening I was actually quite excited and interested to be able to zip around GTA V's world without the pressure of story missions or other external influences getting in the way.

And then, of course, there's all this, but that's something to explore if and when I ever reach 100% completion…

1349: Zeds

I am tiiiiiiired. So tired, in fact, that I very nearly forgot to write something today. That would have been disastrous. (I'm sure no-one would have minded if I "caught up" tomorrow, but that always felt like cheating somehow, and after 1,349 days it's a matter of pride.)

Here I am at 1am, then, wondering what to write about before I fall asleep. I could talk about the Eurogamer Expo again, I suppose, since that's been occupying literally all of my time since Thursday.

It's the last day of the Expo tomorrow. I'm probably not going to hang around until the end because I want to get home, but I am going to catch a couple of last developer sessions and spend some time with my friend Mitu's game Redshirt. It'd also be nice to actually have a chance to fiddle around with a PS4 and/or an Xbox One, but the queues for those have been so ridiculous it hasn't really been practical up until now. I had to lurk around the Nintendo booth before the show opened to be able to play Bayonetta 2, so I shudder to think what hoops I'll have to jump through to see the things that people are really excited about. (Aside: Bayonetta 2 has been drawing an impressive queue of people each day — thought obviously not on the scale of something like Call of Duty or Titanfall — which was nice to see.)

What else? Today I met Mike Bithell, and he's a thoroughly pleasant person — a preview-cum-interview type thing I did with him will be up on USgamer on Monday. I also had the good fortune to meet both Damien McFerran and Johnny Cullen, both of whom are people I have, until now, only known through Twitter. It's nice to put names to faces, and Damien in particular had some very kind things to say about my work that pretty much made my day, so thanks for that, sir, if you're reading.

I've eschewed the evening social gatherings while I'm here, much as I did when I went to Gamescom. The workload has been less insane here than it was at Gamescom, but I've still been working into the evening most nights. I'm also not all that great socialising with people I don't know all that well who do know each other, either — I know there's no way to fix that aside from actually jumping in and getting involved myself, but frankly I haven't quite felt up to it! I do like the Eurogamer lot on the few occasions I've met them, though, so perhaps some other time I'll have the opportunity to hang out with them socially.

I've remained relatively swag-free from this visit, with my freebie acquisitions being limited to a T-shirt that's too small for me from the The Evil Within presentation the other day, a poster from the indie game Cloudbuilt that I was awarded for being only the second person to beat a particular level on display, and some flyers from FuturLab for their upcoming PS4 and Vita game Velocity 2X which, in all honesty, has been one of my favourite things I've seen at the show. I'm thinking of framing both the poster and one of the flyers, since both of them have super-distinctive artwork that would look great on display. We'll see.

Anyway. I'm yawning my head off and it's getting hard to concentrate so I'm going to leave that there. Tomorrow's entry will be from back in my own home rather than this not-all-that-bad-really-but-I-can't-believe-how-expensive-the-tariff-displayed-in-reception-is hotel room.

1348: A Part of It

I've been on and off the show floor at Eurogamer Expo over the last couple of days, with more to come tomorrow and Sunday.

One thing that struck me today is an immense sense of pride to be part of such a vibrant, enthusiastic and exciting industry. Speaking with developers like FuturLab about Velocity 2X (day one purchase for me) and Witch Beam Games about Assault Android Cactus as well as seeing Sony's legendary indie guru Shahid Ahmad speak on stage just gave me the overwhelming sensation that the business has never been in a healthier place — particularly from a cultural perspective.

Today, I played a variety of different games, each of which was a markedly different experience. I played a peculiar abstract game in which you guide a cube through a floating tunnel-like structure; a platform game in which you can independently control your shadow and use other shadows as platforms; a third-person parkour platformer inspired by Sonic and Mega Man; a first-person psychological horror adventure with low-poly textureless graphics combined with gorgeous lighting; the newest Final Fantasy; and a game that purports to be a spiritual successor to Flashback while successfully combining both top-down shooting and side-on platforming.

At no point did I feel the sense of fatigue or cynicism people sometimes direct at the industry; the show floor was a vibrant place filled with creativity and experience for all ages and ability levels. Even from the press office where I was doing the majority of my writing, I could look one direction and see Surgeon Simulator 2013, look the other way and see Microsoft's representatives jumping, whooping, hollering and cheering on stage as they showed off new Kinect games, look another way still and see people staring intently at a multiplayer digital card game.

It's easy to get lulled into a sense of thinking that "all new things are the same; everyone's risk-averse", but it's not until you see a significant proportion of the industry spread out in front of you like that that you realise that no, that's not the case at all; the risk-averse triple-A sector is just one of many parts that make up the whole — and, judging from the number of people who attended Shahid Ahmad's talk on indie games on Sony platforms, one that's quickly being caught up to by other sectors.

So well done, games biz; you're all right. Now it's just a case of successfully countering the cynics with reports of fascinating, intriguing, creative projects that people from all over the world are doing. You can start by taking a peek at my coverage from the Expo over at USgamer.

1347: Om Nom Nom Nom (Plus)

Pac-Man Championship Edition DX+ is a magnificent game, though I'm still at a loss as to whether or not Namco are taking the piss with that title or if they genuinely thought Pac-Man needed that many suffixes.

To be fair, though, Pac-Man CE DX+, as I shall refer to it from hereon, isn't actually all that unreasonable a title if you analyse it. It's a variation of Pac-Man (hence Pac-Man) that evolved into a version designed specifically for competitive play (hence Championship Edition) that subsequently evolved further into a considerably expanded version (hence DX, short for Deluxe) which was then expanded even further with some additional content for the new PC version (hence Plus).

If you haven't played Pac-Man CE DX+ yet, you'll be pleased to know that it's now available for PC via Steam as well as consoles, so you can play it pretty much regardless of whatever system you favour.

If you're a fan of the original Pac-Man, be warned, though; Pac-Man CE DX+ is a noticeably different game, though its ancestry is obvious.

While the original Pac-Man required you to repeatedly clear the same screen of dots over and over again while contending with the unwanted attentions of four ghosts, Pac-Man CE DX+ is a much faster-paced game. The maze is divided into two halves, each of which, when cleared, causes a piece of fruit to appear in the other half. Eating said fruit causes the empty maze to regenerate with a new layout, and thus the process repeats. In the main modes, you're against the clock, attempting to score as many points as possible in either five or ten minutes, so it's in your interest to find the quickest routes possible.

The twist on the formula that DX added was the ridiculous number of ghosts that can be involved. Rather than the four ghosts of the original Pac-Man, each maze half in Pac-Man CE DX+ has a number of sleeping ghosts who are disturbed if Pac-Man passes by them, at which point they form an increasingly long chain and chase him, following the same route he does. High scores are dependent on eating a power pill and then gobbling up a massive chain of ghosts, so as well as finding the best route through the dots, it's actually in your interests to attract as many ghosts in your wake as possible, too. There's very much an "optimum route" for each of the courses in the game, though human error means that, unless you've practiced enough to be literally perfect every time, there'll be slight variations in each run you make — usually costing you a few points or precious seconds in the process.

It's a really interesting game that maintains the basic mechanics of the original Pac-Man while simultaneously turning it into a kind of game that's hard to define. Is it a score attack game? Yes. Is it a puzzle game? Yes. Is it a racing game? Yes, kind of.

It's one of the most peculiar games I've ever played, and revisiting it thanks to the new PC version reminds me that it's also one of my favourite games of all time, and I highly recommend you give it a try if you've never had the pleasure. Enjoy, and I make absolutely no apologies if you end up addicted.

1346: Exposition

I'm off to the Eurogamer Expo tomorrow to cover a bunch of interesting stuff for USgamer. It should be a fun experience, particularly because since Eurogamer's parent company Gamer Network is also the parent company of USgamer, I'll be there as "staff" and consequently should be able to wander around fairly freely and get hands-on with things without too much difficulty.

I last went to the Eurogamer Expo back in 2010. This was the same year I went to PAX for the first time, and it was interesting to compare the two. They're very different events, of course; PAX is more of a cultural convention, while Eurogamer Expo that year (and possibly still is) more of a traditional consumer-facing trade show, with booths, queues and lots of things to play if you can be arsed to line up for them. Eurogamer does have a bunch of developer presentations, however, and it's great to hear and see devs speak about their upcoming or recent projects. Peter Molyneux may be the master of broken promises, for example, but it's easy to see how people get caught up in his grand posturing on stage.

I'm interested to see a selection of things around the show, and I have plenty of time to do so. I'm particularly interested to have a look at the next-gen consoles and see whether they're noticeably better from current offerings, and I'm meeting up with a few smaller developers who are working on some interesting-sounding titles such as top-down bullet hell/Smash TV combo Assault Android Cactus, the NFL-inspired follow-up to Frozen Synapse, Frozen Endzone and Mike Bithell's intriguing-sounding new stealth game Volume. I should also hopefully get a chance to see my friend Mitu, whose intriguing social media-themed strategy game/RPG/strangely undefinable thing Redshirt is looking pretty great, as well as inching ever-closer to release.

I should probably get some sleep beforehand, though. Tomorrow is going to be a long and hopefully exciting day, and that situation will continue for the next couple of days, then I'll be back on Sunday. Hopefully I'll have some interesting things to write about while I'm away, and a chance to get a bit of a rest on Sunday before next week kicks off once again!

Hopefully it's also payday within the next couple of days… London ain't cheap. And I need to buy a notebook. I do things old-school.

1345: A Grand Old Time

I'll probably write something in more depth over on USgamer tomorrow, but I wanted to give some immediate reactions to having just finished Grand Theft Auto V.

Short version: I was extremely impressed. I was expecting to just duck into it for a little while in order to be able to write about it during its launch week, but I found myself hooked in various ways: the story, the world, the characters. The whole thing is put together in such a marvellously coherent way that it just works really well — and I barely even touched all the largely irrelevant side stuff.

GTA V has drawn a bunch of flak for various reasons, but from what I can tell, it's business as usual in GTA-land. In fact, GTA V nails the balance between biting satire and straight-up drama better than any previous installment in the series — there's always been a certain dissonance between the fact that you can freely whip out a rocket launcher and start blowing shit up and the actual linear story that Rockstar is trying to tell.

The interesting thing about GTA V is that a lot of its most "offensive" stuff is down to the player. The notorious "shag a prostitute then run her over to get your money back" thing that people always fixate on? That was emergent player behaviour that people discovered in Grand Theft Auto III. Murderous rampages? You're free to commit them any time you see fit, but there will be consequences — some people will shoot back, other times, you'll attract the attention of the police. The story and all the bad things you commit in the name of the ongoing narrative? It's always your choice to proceed down that path; if you'd rather play the game as a "city living" simulator, you can do. If you'd rather play the game in an attempt to steal the most heavily-guarded vehicles as possible, you can do. If you want to ignore the structured content, you can do — and there's very little "unlocking" of things to do, unlike earlier installments, so you have pretty much free roam of the enormous map from the get-go.

I was surprised that GTA V's plot actually hooked me, though. I enjoyed spending time with Michael, Trevor and Franklin, each of whom are interesting, well-realised characters and all distinctive in their own right. None of them — not even Trevor, whom a lot of critics have fixated on — are one-dimensional characters, and each have their own personal story arcs to follow amid the overall plot. The story itself has a good blend of dark humour and serious(ish) crime drama, and there's some fantastic setpieces. There's potential for different playthroughs to unfold slightly differently thanks to some (admittedly limited) choices — but the game caters to and copes with these differences with unique dialogue.

Outside of the main story components, the missions are well-designed, too; one of the strengths of the open-world structure is that it provides the scope for you to tackle situations as you see fit, and the game embraces this philosophy wholeheartedly on a number of occasions. There are assassination missions where you need to figure out the best way to approach a target, for example; and later in the game, you have to steal some cars based on limited photographic information. This latter one really impressed me, actually; I found myself walking rather than driving around the city, looking carefully for the landmarks I was supposed to be seeking out, and it wasn't a frustrating experience at all — it felt like walking around a real city looking for something.

GTA V has its elements that will make people uncomfortable or turn them off, sure, but there's little denying it's a great game and a fantastic technical achievement. I'm glad I actually took the time to play it through — I was all set to pass it by after getting frustrated with all the frankly ridiculous hype, which I still think was completely overboard — and would recommend that if you've been on the fence about it, you should give it a go.

1341: Life in Los Santos

I'm very impressed with Grand Theft Auto V. Much, much more than I was expecting to be — most notably for the fact that it's actually the story keeping me interested.

Grand Theft Auto has undergone a gradual evolutionary process since its first installment. The first Grand Theft Auto was a fast-action arcade game — you had a score, lives, crazy bonuses and the fact you were driving around being an asshole was largely incidental. Grand Theft Auto II introduced a few additional mechanics, but was still largely a "game" rather than an immersive world and story.

Grand Theft Auto III is where things started to change. Transplanting the action from the top-down maps of earlier installments into a fully three-dimensional city, it was many folks' first encounter with a "sandbox" game, in which you could do as you pleased. That "freedom" was something of an illusion, though; Grand Theft Auto III still had a very "game-like" progression whereby you couldn't make it to the next "level" — the next of Liberty City's three islands — until you had progressed far enough in the structured content. It worked well, though; by the time you finished a region, you knew it really well. That said, if you were booting up the game for the first time on, say, someone else's console and you just wanted to get the great sports cars and cause havoc, there were arbitrary limitations in place.

Vice City took the basic structure of Grand Theft Auto III and removed those restrictions for the most part. The Miami-inspired setting was split between two islands that you could drive back and forth between at will, and there were plenty of things for you to do besides the story missions — though the story itself was interesting in a Scarface sort of way. This was taken to an extreme in San Andreas, which offered three cities and a whole host of countryside in between, with plenty of side things to do along the way, although the early part of the game did reinstate the arbitrary game-like restrictions on where you were "allowed" to go.

Grand Theft Auto IV was another turning point for the series. Although III onwards had had an actual narrative with a beginning, middle and end, IV placed the emphasis on the story rather than freeform chaos. You still had a lot of choice and freedom in how you went about beating the game, but real efforts had clearly been made to make the protagonist an interesting character. For some, however, this went against the grain of what they felt Grand Theft Auto "should" be about — particularly when you started getting regularly harassed on the phone by virtual in-game girlfriends and friends to go and hang out. I personally quite liked it — though not enough, I might add, to ever actually finish it.

And now we have Grand Theft Auto V, a game which is attracting as much cynicism as it is popularity and commercial success. And I'm a bit sad about the cynicism part, because Grand Theft Auto V is doing some clever things, is written well and is a remarkably effective piece of fiction — both from the perspective of its scripted narrative and in the building of its world that presents a skewed, twisted but eerily accurate view of our own society in 2013. At the same time, the open world chaos is still very much present and correct — it just doesn't feel as "gamey" as it once did. And that's good — it shows the series has evolved over time rather than stagnating, because it has.

Grand Theft Auto V has the most seamless transitions between freeform wandering around and scripted narrative that I've ever seen. There's no loading breaks, no fade-outs with mission titles, no "letterboxing" — just one moment you'll be walking around, the next you come across a couple of people talking, you walk up to them and you're seamlessly into a cutscene.

Then there's "the torture scene," a scene that has caused a considerable amount of hand-wringing from people across the industry. (Spoilers ahead, obviously.)

In "the torture mission," two of the game's three protagonists become embroiled in a plot involving the in-game equivalent of the FBI. Having "rescued" a hostage from the CIA-equivalent, said hostage is then kidnapped by the FIB (sic) and dragged to an abandoned warehouse for interrogation. Michael, one of the protagonists, is sent out to find a person — supposedly a threat to national security — based on the information the hostage gives. Trevor, another of the protagonists, stays behind to administer torture and get the hostage to talk.

For the mission, your control flips back and forth between Trevor and Michael several times. As Michael, you have to use the information Trevor finds to locate and assassinate the right person; as Trevor, you have the option of using several different implements to administer torture to the hostage, and you have to actively participate in said torture by following on-screen prompts.

The scene is graphic, horrible, disturbing and unpleasant. Taken out of context, you'd be forgiven for thinking Rockstar had finally gone too far with this scene. Take it in context, meanwhile, and it's entirely appropriate for this scene to be there. It makes sense, and it has something to say. The hostage starts talking almost immediately after the prospect of torture is on the table, and yet as the player we're still forced to administer torture four times in total, reflecting the fact that both Trevor and Michael are very much under the control of the FIB at this point. Trevor, being a psychopath, takes a certain degree of pleasure from administering the torture but is still aware that not performing it would be worse for both him and the hostage. And when it's all over and the FIB agents leave Trevor alone with the hostage to "deal with" him, Trevor instead cuts the hostage's bonds, loads him into his car and drives him to the airport, telling him that his old life is over now and he needs to get as far away from Los Santos as possible.

"Torture is for the torturer," Trevor says to the hostage on the drive. "And for the person giving orders to the torturer. Sometimes it's for the torturee, but only if they're paying well enough. It's a terrible means of getting information."

I had no idea of the latter part of the scene's context from the articles that emerged shortly after the game's release, and it's important. It gives it meaning and a message — whether or not you think it's succeeding in delivering that message is a matter of opinion, of course, but I think it was remarkably effective. One thing I am certain of, though; it's certainly not in there just to court controversy. Like so many other things in Grand Theft Auto V, it's a brutal and biting attack on some of the things about modern culture that we might not want to acknowledge or admit.

Should we have been able to skip it? Should it have come with warnings? Those are questions I can't answer, I'm afraid, but for me, some of the impact of that particular part of the story would have been lost if that scene was not present.

And I'll be honest, I never expected to be sitting here talking about the impact a Grand Theft Auto's story had on me, which is just one of many signs of how far the series has come.

1339: Obligatory GTA Post

So I've been playing Grand Theft Auto V and, as often happens with overly-hyped games that I've started to feel sick of the sight of before they already came out, I've found myself genuinely surprised to be enjoying it.

This doesn't make the "hype" problem any less of a problem, though. I get that people are excited about it and that it's a relatively "important" game from the perspective of it costing a fucking fortune to make and also being one of the last great "big" games of this hardware generation, but the sheer level of hype is actually having something of a negative impact.

You might think that's a contradiction — any publicity is good publicity, after all — but in GTA's case the sheer pressure there is to write something — anything — about this fucking game is leading to what I can't help but feel is a bit of an unrealistic picture.

The cynicism surrounding the game's characters, writing and story is probably the worst thing. Going in to GTA V relatively "blind" having deliberately avoided as much of the hype as I possibly could, I've been surprised at quite how well-written it is. Michael is a sympathetic character prone to bouts of extravagant rage — often manifesting in some of the game's more spectacular setpieces — while Franklin is a character who is clearly much too smart for the life he's been living up until this point.

Trevor, meanwhile, whose missions I finally unlocked this evening, is a genuinely loathsome character, but not in the sense that he stops me wanting to play. On the contrary, his loathsomeness is horrifyingly compelling — particularly as he's not just a blindly raging psychopath and is instead clearly something of a complex character prone to violent mood swings. He's cracking genuinely amusing witticisms one moment; screaming bloody murder (literally) the next. He's certainly memorable.

There's been a lot of hand-wringing over the game's overall sense of morality, and I do think that it's the most graphic, violent GTA we've ever seen. Again, that's not necessarily a bad thing, though; if a story told in a medium known for desensitising people to virtual violence still has the capacity to shock and make you feel uncomfortable, it's doing its job right. Is it necessary? Perhaps not, but this is the story the writers have chosen to tell and the characters they have chosen to create, and in a game so focused on its unfolding plot — and yes, regardless of all the open-world chaos there is on offer, this is very much a game about its plot and characters — I have to respect the writers' decisions. Also, we are talking about a series called Grand Theft Auto — a series which has long been known for its strong focus on deliberately being a tosser.

Interestingly, one thing I've found with GTA is that I want to "method act" the characters. When I'm playing as Michael, I want to play things straight — drive properly and respectfully, not start fights or cause chaos. When I'm Franklin, it's similar — it feels particularly right, as Franklin, to stop for the people who've had their bag snatched, chase down the criminal and then return it to the person who lost it rather than walking off with it. When I'm Trevor, meanwhile, everything goes out of the window; it doesn't feel "wrong" to take the most direct route possible to a destination, even if that means flattening every fence and lamppost along the way; it doesn't feel "wrong" to wander down the street punching random pedestrians in the face.

I had my suspicions before I unlocked him, but now I'm all but completely certain that Trevor is in the game primarily for one reason: to address the most common criticism of GTA IV, which was that the story the game was trying to tell and the freedom to cause carnage were at odds with one another. Using the "method acting" analogy again, it simply didn't feel right to play Niko as a psychopath who randomly attacked people and stood in the middle of the road with a rocket launcher. The simple presence of Trevor in GTA V — plus the ability to give him a massive beard and a ridiculous scraggy mullet just to make him look even more disheveled than he already is — ably addresses this concern while still allowing the rest of the game to unfold its narrative in peace. Well, as much peace as can be expected from a GTA narrative, anyway.

Is GTA V perfect? No, of course not. Does it have issues that could do with resolving? Perhaps, though I'd perhaps argue not to the degree some people are making out. Is it good, though? Absolutely, and if you've been debating whether or not to get it… you should at least give it a look. If it does something that turns you off, fair enough; but it's certainly well worth a look.

1337: The Value of Comments (Or the Lack Thereof)

Grand Theft Auto V's reviews came out today — the game itself is out tomorrow.

Unsurprisingly, comments sections the world over erupted into chaos on each individual site's review (although USgamer's has, as ever, remained largely very polite and articulate, which is a trend I sincerely hope continues).

Of particular concern is Gamespot's review, which gave the game 9/10 while still managing to point out the fact that yes, GTA has some issues with women that it really should have probably gotten over by now. My concern isn't with the review itself, which is an interesting, well-argued read; rather, it's with the 3,192 comments that are beneath it at the time of writing — a figure that is literally increasing by the second right now.

What is the value in that comments section? Leaving aside the loathsome content of a significant proportion of those individual comments, what possible value is there in allowing people to comment on a review at such a rate that it becomes literally impossible to follow a single conversation? What possible value is there in 3,216 (yep, it's gone up in just those few words) comments, many of which contain the same ill-informed, bile-spewing opinions? For that matter, even if they didn't contain said bile, what possible value is there in having 3,230 comments beneath a review? Who is going to read all that shit except, possible, judging by Twitter, for people who have a particular taste for masochism?

It's not just Gamespot's review that's a problem, though it, at the time of writing, appears to feature by far the most objectionable people. Destructoid's Jim Sterling has been complaining about commenters once again lambasting him for rating [game x] one score and [game y] another score when they have nothing to do with each other. He notes that he doesn't believe review scores are the problem there, either.

Perhaps they aren't, either; perhaps the problem is the comments section.

The trouble with proposing something drastic like eradicating all comments sections, however, is that they're occasionally valuable — though increasingly we're in a situation where comments sections are only useful and conducive to meaningful discussion on smaller sites such as USgamer, and personal outlets such as this blog. In the case of large-scale sites like IGN and Gamespot, it seems that all comments sections achieve is to give imbeciles a soapbox to stand on and bellow their idiocy from while simultaneously finding like-minded twats to validate their opinions, culminating in the ridiculous sight of people genuinely clamouring for Gamespot to fire the reviewer Carolyn Petit for giving Grand Theft Auto V 9 out of 10 instead of the 10 that they, the people who have not played it yet, think it deserves.

But what can be done? Should IGN and Gamespot just close their comments sections?

Well… Yes, I think they should. They're clearly not adding any value to the conversation. There's no sense in trying to make it a "dialogue" between the site and the readers when the comments come at such a pace and in such a volume that it's impossible for the original writer to engage in discussion with people who actually want to engage in discussion, and in the meantime the braying idiots just get a megaphone with which to bellow their idiotic shit into the void. Shut 'em all off, I say, and leave the discussion to sites with a community small enough to make online interactions actually meaningful; let the big sites become places from which content is just shared and discussed via social media rather than the wretched scum-pits they seem to be becoming today. It'll put the attention back on the actual writers and the things they're saying — and it will probably significantly benefit said writers' mental health, too, because I know I certainly wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of the torrents of abuse some people have been getting today.

3,512 comments.

Can we reboot the Internet?

[EDIT, June 7, 2023: 22,164 comments. Just in case you were curious.]