Junot Díaz, writing for theWall Street Journal, hasconfessedthat although he lovesGrand Theft Auto IV, and recognizes it as art, it is not the messianic miracle that game critics have claimed it to be. He says holding it up to movies likeThe Godfather, as some reviwers have done, speaks too highly of a game that is great, but notthatgreat.
OK, let me be clear: I loveGTA IVand I have no doubt that it is art, but an equal to “The Sopranos” or “The Godfather“? Narrative art of that caliber is distinguished by its ability to re-organize our preconceptions, to shift us into a world that’s always been there but that we’ve been afraid to acknowledge, and I’m not convinced thatGTA IVpulls off that miracle.
GTA IVis brilliant, but despite what virtually all the reviews claim, it ain’t the revolution. If you playedGTA IIIor higher,GTA IVwon’t exactly catapult you to higher plane of existence or induce metanoia.GTA IIIwas the revolution, and established the grammar for the franchise.
I fully agree with Junot’s argument (unsurprising if you read my 8/10GTA IVreview) and think this was a great article.Grand Theft Auto IVisn’t revolutionary in the slightest, and even though its storyline is great, it is not the “most important artwork of our time,” or on par with videogames likeBioShockandOcarina of Time, never mind movies. At any rate, I recommend reading the article, as it’s a very encouraging take on videogames as art, and provides a refreshingly positive spin that you don’t often see from non-specialist games writing.
