Okay, fair enough. But that’s like saying dialog doesn’t always need to make sense or characters don’t always need to be consistent. It’s technically true, and if you want to argue that Grand Theft Auto V is deliberately an avant-garde subversion of classic story structure then I technically can’t prove you wrong. But given how much these games work to imitate movies, I don’t think it’s unreasonable<\/em> to imagine the writer is trying to make a story that works like a classic crime drama, and I think it’s worth examining the game to see how it worked.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Things like a clear central conflict, rising action, a three-act structure, character arcs, and thematic closure aren’t some nit-picky rules invented by literature nerds as a way to objectively measure story quality. They’re tools that the storyteller can use to communicate and entertain. They’re built into our expectations about how stories work and those expectations can be leveraged to create an emotional connection. You don’t HAVE to follow the rules, but the audience does sort of expect you to get them invested in the story. If you can engage the audience without using the standard tools, then good for you. But if you fail – if your story ends up feeling like a bloated disjointed confusing mess – then maybe you ought to follow the formula and leave the experimental stuff to the David Lynch<\/a>es and Terry Gilliam<\/a>s of the world. <\/p>\n Earlier in this series I compared Grand Theft Auto games to Michael Bay’s Transformers, and this is why. The Transformers movies break a lot of these rules, and as a result they end up having really boring stories. You’ll find yourself sitting through a scene with no idea what anyone is trying to accomplish or what you’re supposed to be anticipating \/ dreading. There’s no tension. You’ve got characters we’re not invested in, having a fight we can’t follow, over a MacGuffin that makes no sense, to overcome an obstacle that was never explained, in order to accomplish a goal we don’t care about. The only source of stimulation is the almost numbing deluge of sound & fury in the form of gasoline explosions and screaming, because the emotional core of the movie is vacant. <\/p>\n Grand Theft Auto V<\/em> suffers from this same problem. Sure, it’s kind of exciting to race a supercar down the highway to steal it for Devon Weston, but there are no emotional stakes. Why am I working for this guy? Why do I care about him? What terrible fate are our heroes trying to avoid by doing this job? What are they hoping to get out of it? <\/p>\n In the story, Michael is obligated to work for the FIB, and in turn the FIB tells him to work for Devin Weston. But it’s obvious Michael’s team doesn’t want to. The player probably doesn’t want to either. We were doing cool gangster shit a few hours ago and now we’re working for a very non-cool guy. He doesn’t feel dangerous or menacing. He’s not witty or clever. He’s not mysterious or powerful. Imagine a story where you’re doing jobs for Tony Soprano and then suddenly you’re cleaning Jeff Bezos’ pool. <\/p>\n We never get a conversation between our lead characters where they discuss what they want. They don’t consider killing Devin Weston, or give a reason why they can’t just blow him off. They were working for the FIB to stop Michael’s “witness protection” stuff from being exposed, but Weston has nothing to do with that. Given how profoundly annoying Devin Weston and Agent Steve are, and given how extremely dangerous these missions areAt one point Michael’s team is obliged to assault some sort of CIA black site to steal a WMD that never figures into the plot.<\/span>, it’s really crazy that our three leads never get together for a conversation where they at least consider<\/em> the possibility of just killing their enemies. I can believe that having the “witness protection” stuff exposed would be a problem for Michael, but is that threat really<\/em> bigger than the danger of assaulting the FIB headquarters to destroy a bunch of data for Agent Steve? At some point don’t all of these suicide missions add up to more danger than whatever Agent Steve can threaten them with? Shouldn’t they at least discuss it so we in the audience can feel that same sense of dread that Michael is feelingNot that he’s ever depicted as feeling afraid of the FIB. We just have to ASSUME he is for the story to work.<\/span>?<\/p>\n Trevor, Michael, and Franklin aren’t making decisions based on their characters, they’re just going along with whatever the writer says. The story just stumbles from one batch of missions to the next, without giving the audience a sense that this is a growing problem or that all of this is building towards something. We’re supposed to take the Grand Theft Auto<\/em> mission structure for granted: It’s time for the next boss of the week, and this week we’re doing “satire” of monied douchebags.<\/em><\/p>\n If you don’t care about stakes or motivation then fine<\/em>, go enjoy your rigidly scripted missions and lavishly produced cutscenes of no substance. But I maintain that even if the writer wasn’t trying<\/em> to tell a proper story with stakes, tension, and payoff, the game would be better if they did<\/em>. <\/p>\n For the sake of argument, let’s just assume that the designers wanted to design a Grand Theft Auto game with a more coherent structure. So what is Rockstar supposed to do? Cut out all the fluff? Then you have a new problem. If you take a 90 minute movie and stretch it out over a 12 hour game then the player feels sort of disconnected from the story for long periods of time. If you shorten the game to something you can beat in a couple of hours then it feels sort of cheap and unworthy of the sprawling world. If you pause the main drama and give the player several hours of unrelated side-stories, then the whole thing feels sort of aimless. So how are you supposed<\/i> to tell a story in the context of a game this big?<\/p>\n I can think of a couple of ways to do this…<\/p>\n Personally<\/i> I’d just write a longer main story. Keep the action focused on a big, clear, central goal. (Like pulling off the ultimate heist, which is currently one of many side-plots in this soup of a story.). Have everything else feed into that central idea. In the background would be the brewing trouble between Michael and Trevor. Most of the game would be spent working towards this one goal, having the characters pull off smaller heists to get the resources they need to tackle The Big One. But that main plot wouldn’t vanish for hours at a time while we messed around with B plots. The central plot would drive the action, and the side-stories would steal a minute here and there. You know. Just like the movies these games keep trying to imitate.<\/p>\n Lord of the Rings does this. Everyone is working together to save Middle-Earth and put an end to The One Ring, and the story remains focused on this goal. Sure, we spend a chapter helping King Th\u00e9oden get his groove back, but we do that because we need Th\u00e9oden’s help against Sauron. We might be a little distant to the central conflict, but the action is still visibly connected. We don’t spend the Two Towers hanging out in The Shire growing pipe-weed and chasing pigs. We don’t spend six chapters helping Barliman Butterbur save The Prancing Pony from foreclosure.<\/p>\n “But Shamus, what about Tom Bombadil? Isn’t that pretty irrelevant? Huh? Huh?”<\/strong><\/p>\n Actually, I agree. I mean, I like that chapter of Lord of the Rings, but I’ll admit you can excise it while doing no damage to the plot. And note that a lot of people criticize the Bombadil section because<\/i> it’s such a cul-de-sac that never leads to a payoff. Sure, he’s an interesting bit of flavor and worldbuilding, but he’s basically irrelevant to the proceedings. If GTA V only had one or two minor Bombadil moments then I’d be more inclined to forgive it. <\/p>\n Lord of the Rings was a story with a crystal clear central conflict that had occasional distractions. GTA V lacks the clarity of an overarching threat, and in the end it feels like an entire story made up of mostly Bombadil-level digressions. <\/p>\n The story of Niko Bellic in GTA IV was aimless, but at least our protagonist had a well-defined goal. (Even if he rarely pursued it.) When you’re at the two-thirds mark in the story of GTA V, there’s almost nothing to tell you what all of this is building towards. What’s our ultimate goal? Settle up with the FIB? Settle up with Devin Weston? Resolve the feud between Michael and Trevor? Sort things out with Michael’s family? Pull the ultimate heist? Where is the story going? What are we in the audience supposed to fear \/ anticipate? <\/p>\n We do actually pull the ultimate heist, but that moment is disconnected from the resolution to these other plots. They do a heist AND get revenge AND reconcile with each other AND Michael’s family life calms down, but these moments aren’t at all connected through causality. Ideally you’d want the game to build towards a finale where these three ideas are linked. For example: Michael’s need to protect his family FORCES him to get revenge on their enemies THOUGH pulling off the heist, which RESULTS in a bonding experience that creates reconciliation between our leads. <\/p>\nThe Need For Structure<\/h3>\n
<\/div>
<\/div>Making a Bigger Story<\/h3>\n
<\/div>
<\/div>
<\/div>
<\/div>