But What is Challenge (A GTA Discussion Thread)

[Nachtfischer]

Challenge- n. (CHalənj) A task or situation that tests someone's abilities.

 

Is there any challenge in GTA V? You'll have to forgive the question, I've never actually gotten around to playing them. I've always kept up with them, but never played (except a bit of GTA IV at a friend's house). It's always kind of seemed like an awkward game that's somewhat confused about whether it's a true sandbox or a game-game. The one thing that always turned me off is that they're presented as a game with storylines and quests and such, but it's never seemed to be anything of a challenge (other than stuff like awkward controls- I mean true difficulty here). What I played of GTA IV there was no challenge at all.

 

I agree 100 %. I mean, you can't even lose the game, right? So how can it be challenging in the sense of the definition given above? If you can't fail, it's not a test. You are an undying super villain wielding the second most powerful weapon following quicksave: checkpoints!

[Rathlord]

A blanket criticism of the genre that's been in the game since the first one isn't really all that relevant to my question, but thanks nonetheless.

[Nachtfischer]

Why don't you think it's relevant? Isn't it necessary to be able to NOT make it, when you want there to be a "challenge"?

[EnigmaGrey]

Why don't you think it's relevant? Isn't it necessary to be able to NOT make it, when you want there to be a "challenge"?

Waypoints and quicksave have been a staple of this sandbox game since it's initial conception. If, by including these things, you feel that robs the game of any challenge -- fine. This, however, dates back to 1997. What relevance does it have today; how does it alter the challenge of a Grand Theft Auto game if that's one of the defining characteristics of a GTA game?

Perhaps you should make your own thread to disucss what would make the game (and the entire series, if you must paint with a broad brush) more of a true game in another thread.

[Nachtfischer]

First of all:

Pixel Bombs, I mean to say "Talk about the game (and the series) itself here. Please, don't go into a philosophical discussion on games in general."

 

 

What relevance does it have today; how does it alter the challenge of a Grand Theft Auto game if that's one of the defining characteristics of a GTA game?

It does not alter anything. Why does it have to? Rathlord asked if there was a challenge to the game and I answered the question.

 

 

Perhaps you should make your own thread to disucss what would make the game (and the entire series, if you must paint with a broad brush) more of a true game in another thread.

Hell, no. I would never want GTA to be a game. Its strength is really the incredible potential it has as a pure sandbox experience. I would amplify that without any compromise and we'd likely have one of the greatest interactive systems ever made in the history of mankind.

[EnigmaGrey]

First of all:

Pixel Bombs, I mean to say "Talk about the game (and the series) itself here. Please, don't go into a philosophical discussion on games in general."

 

 

What relevance does it have today; how does it alter the challenge of a Grand Theft Auto game if that's one of the defining characteristics of a GTA game?

It does not alter anything. Why does it have to? Rathlord asked if there was a challenge to the game and I answered the question.

 

 

Perhaps you should make your own thread to disucss what would make the game (and the entire series, if you must paint with a broad brush) more of a true game in another thread.

Hell, no. I would never want GTA to be a game. Its strength is really the incredible potential it has as a pure sandbox experience. I would amplify that without any compromise and we'd likely have one of the greatest interactive systems ever made in the history of mankind.

You might want to finish reading that second sentence, it states "Please, don't go into a philosophical discussion on games in general."

What is more philosophical than an attempt to generally define challenge in a game?

Here's we're we're going:

"Is it challenging?"

"But, what is challenge?"

"Why, challenge is . . . "

"But, challenge is defined as . . ."

"  . . . "

[Nachtfischer]

So, if someone asks a non-trivial question, we should either just ignore it or take the typical "spray and pray approach" of just throwing out random opinions on what we think and what he could have meant to begin with? I don't think that will get us anywhere useful in any discussion. We totally should start with defining challenge. Or in fact, Rathlord should, as he was the one asking!

[EnigmaGrey]

So, if someone asks a non-trivial question, we should either just ignore it or take the typical "spray and pray approach" of just throwing out random opinions on what we think and what he could have meant to begin with? I don't think that will get us anywhere useful in any discussion. We totally should start with defining challenge. Or in fact, Rathlord should, as he was the one asking!

I suppose this is an answer. (Obligatory bump to inform you of the splitting of topics.)

[RoboMat]

I mean, you can't even lose the game, right? So how can it be challenging? You are an undying super villain wielding the second most powerful weapon following quicksave: checkpoints!

 

Yes and I loved being an undying super villain since the very first GTA game I have played (oh and all those awesome cheats ... loved them). That's why I am going to buy GTAV eventually too.

[Nachtfischer]

Thanks for supporting my point!

 

To elaborate: The question was never if GTA was "good" or "fun" or "worth buying" or "to be liked by anyone". It was "Does GTA have challenge?" Which is apparently, just as I mentioned before, not the case. People often tend to get confused about these things and automatically enter some weird "I have to defend the thing I like" mode, which turns into  an even weirder "I have to defend MYSELF" mode. Even if nobody ever attacked them.

 

To go even further: I think it's great, that GTA has no challenge. That's just embracing its nature as a totally contest-less toy.

[Rathlord]

I see a whole lot of semantics and not a lot of solid points.

 

A better, less intentionally inflammatory answer would have been something like this:

 

Due to checkpoints, instant respawning, and no penalty to death (stables of all GTA games) I don't find the game very challenging. But instead we got this:

I mean, you can't even lose the game, right? So how can it be challenging? You are an undying super villain wielding the second most powerful weapon following quicksave: checkpoints!

 

And yes, this IS related specifically to GTA 5, even if it is true for the majority of games out there.

[Nachtfischer]

Yeah, that's almost the same thing but not exactly.

 

I didn't say: "I don't find the game very challenging." That's phrased like you don't really want to say something and it can't be countered anyways, because hey... it's what YOU FIND. So this statements just floats around randomly and will never cause any useful discussion to happen.

(I know, that's just how we "politely" phrase things, but I don't think that's useful at all. We need to get rid of the whole "feeling attacked" if someone makes a bold and clear statement.)

 

I say: The core system of GTA has NO challenge. And that's great!

[Rathlord]

There's room for being political in any discussion. There's a difference between being bold and being inflammatory, and I'm sure you knew your post would cause people to be upset (even if you're right, and people do get upset when they shouldn't- you're still bright enough to know that).

 

And, at the end of the day, claiming to be the be-all-end-all of whether a game is challenging is a bit... haughty? So if you claim anything other than "I find..." then it's basically just an ego-trip that excludes the validity of any else's opinion. This is a highly subjective subject, and I was obviously asking for opinions with my original question.

 

Edit: Beat Harakka to it! Barely!

[harakka]

"I feel" and similar phrases indicate a subjective opinion. The lack indicates you are pointing out an absolute fact about the game. When you are stating your opionions as absolute facts when several other people indicate they have a differing opinion, well... wohoo?

[Nachtfischer]

Sorry for being inflammatory then. But that's still better than saying nothing at all.

 

Well, I don't care for subjective opinions. Anyone can have any opinion. Cool! So what? Why even discuss that? That's why I wanted to start by defining "challenge". So than we can actually have a fruitful and objective discussion! (Actually, I wanted Rathlord to define challenge, since he asked the original question.) I know, many people think like "nobody can ever say anything that's not subjective about videogames". Well, that's not true. We just haven't established useful criteria to do so yet.

 

But it seems nobody here is interested and it's probably the wrong site for that altogether. It'd probably be best to just close the topic then.

[Rathlord]

Much like art, or even your example of music that you used, even if you have criteria to judge by (and we do have some), it's still in the eye of the beholder. Whether you want to view video games as entertainment or art there is still no world where you can say "This is the ruler. This game is a 7.5 on the ruler. Everyone on earth will comply." Just like in music, or literature, or anything else. Regardless of the criteria, it's still nothing but opinion until we finish assimilating the world. We are the Borg. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Resistance is futile.

[harakka]

If you want to have an objective discussion, you might want to first establish to the readers why they should take your statements as descriptions of factual states of being in the observable universe, instead of just opinions like everyone else's.

[Nachtfischer]

The criteria we use to judge games are completely arbitrary and vastly superficial. It's literally like a game gets a 6/10 on GameSpot, because it had "some funny jokes". Another game is praised for its number of units. Another one for the graphics. Anything for anything.

 

If we actually established reasonable criteria, then we could indeed make objective statements about games, according to these criteria. If we don't agree on the criteria, then obviously we don't even need to say anything. But I hope I don't need to tell you why it would be good to actually have criteria to advance the craft and the art of game making...

 

@harakka: Again, I'm totally in for a objective discussion! But it seems, Rathlord just doesn't want to define "challenge" at all.

[Rathlord]

@harakka: Again, I'm totally in for a objective discussion! But it seems, Rathlord just doesn't want to define "challenge" at all.

 

That's a rather straw-man argument. I never said I don't want challenge defined. I said that no one is qualified to give an absolute truth as an answer to the question. Those aren't the same thing, and acting like they are doesn't change that.

[Nachtfischer]

I don't know what you're even getting it. I've not even tried to make any argument yet?! All I wanted was for you to define challenge, so we can discuss whether GTA has challenge according to your definition. If we start with a definition, then we can make objective statements about that. If everbody uses his own definition, then we might just let the matter rest to begin with.

[Rathlord]

 

Rathlord just doesn't want to define "challenge" at all.

 

I never said I don't want challenge defined.

 

 

This is the definition of straw man. =\

 

But if you must:

 

Challenge- n. (CHalənj) A task or situation that tests someone's abilities.

 

 

I'm not sure why you think that every single word needs to be redefined for use in context of video games. I want to know if it will test my abilities. Nothing more, nothing less. Things don't always have to be complicated semantics.

 

 

inb4 "Define Straw Man"

A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally, is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

[Nachtfischer]

Oh, that was not even meant to be taken seriously. I just tried to tickle a definition out of you!

 

I don't want "every single word needs to be redefined for use in context of video games". I want words to be defined when I'm talking to people in general. It's not like "challenge" is some triviality, that everybody has exactly the same views on. For example, some people define "challenge" as something hard to achieve. Like, a strong man could say "Oh, lifting one kilogram is not a challenge for me!" But if you put that lifting into the context of a weightlifting contest, it indeed is a challenge according to the definition you gave! It is a test of someone's abilities. It is probably one that is sure to be passed, but nevertheless, it's a "challenge"! You see what I mean? This has nothing to do with video games or "redefining", it's just about the basics of fruitful discussion!

 

Okay, so now we have a rough definition to work with. Now let's look at GTA.

 

First, what's the inherent goal of GTA? Probably completion of the story, since there is nothing else that you're tasked with by the system itself? Now, is this completion a "test of your abilities"? You could jump to the conclusion that it surely is, because it takes dexterity (maybe even a little thought?) to achieve it. But is it really a "test"? I don't think so, because for something to be a test, it would have to define a clear loss condition. And since you can't lose in GTA (you just retry over and over again), it's not a test and therefore not a challenge by your given definition. You could say "walking away and never completing the story" is a loss condition, but that's clearly not defined by the system itself. It would be some kind of "house rule" you'd have to force upon it yourself.

 

See? That's why I said GTA has no "challenge". I actually had quite a similar definition in mind as you just gave. What's all the fuzz about to begin with?

[nasKo]

Are you serious...

[Nachtfischer]

Care to elaborate?

[EnigmaGrey]

And now you see why I've removed this abstract conversation from the concrete discussion of a game.

Erm.

Maybe.