[Linki]

QUOTE (turvus2 @ Sunday, Feb 12 2012, 22:48)

QUOTE (Linki @ Monday, Feb 6 2012, 06:21) Between Niko and Darko, who was really worse? Having his eyes opened like this probably made him see the terrible things Niko and the squad were doing. He obviously didn't support them anymore and thus, betrayed them for money, perhaps as a way to separate himself from them. When he gave up his friends, I'm not sure he knew they were going to get killed. Because it seems he found out later they got killed and the guilt destroyed him. Then who knows what happened to him after that. It seems he became a junkie? So, seeing it from Darko's perspective, who was really in the wrong? May contain SPOILERS! I like where you are going with your post, but you are overcomplicating things. Darko betrayed his friends for blow. He had addiction already at the point of "selling out"! - thats a fact, listen to the cutscene. Betrayal is not surprising either - junkies are known to do the most disgusting things to get hands on drugs. Simple as that. I dont think he had illumination or even had a right to rat on his friends to die. That being said, his action had its guilt effects, but then again he got what he deserved. Besides, betraying friends cant be excused under any reasoning: having open eyes, trying to separate or not, thats as low as one can get (thats the whole morale GTA IV story - biggest antagonist is snake backstabbing piece of sh*t Dmitri). How can that person be better than Nico, who is the one who got betrayed, moreover spent 10 years of his life to pay back for his friends?!

I do tend to over complicate things, but all for a greater cause: good discussion, which is what I've got. Good reply

[CheesyJ]

I think that while Niko did plenty of bad things during the war, he had to. He was fighting for his own country and his own people; therefore he had to go out of his way to kill others.

At the end of the day, Darko was the one who turned on his very own people and killed him for absolutely nothing. I think that makes him a bad person, but he is able to realise that himself. When Niko meets Darko, I think you can see a tinge of regret in Darko at what he did.

[Sanjeem]

QUOTE (Tycek @ Monday, Feb 6 2012, 09:01)

During domestic wars like Yugoslavian wars there is no right and wrong side. Learning something in that topic can really help you understand the whole situation. Niko's religion was an orthodoxy and he was a Serb, like Darko and other members of this squad. Darko probably lived in place inhabited mostly by bosnians who are muslims. Niko and his squad killed them and burned their village and Darko as a repayment (he lived along those bosnians so he treated them like friends) lead whole squad into a trap made by other bosnian soldiers. You can't say that either Niko or Darko were wrong, because in fact this whole war was wrong. And in wars like this you can't point and say they are the good guys and they are bad. In wars like that it only matters who lost less friends.

I 100% agree with this. Ethnic cleansing will never be right in any situation.

[Sanjeem]

QUOTE (Chukkles @ Wednesday, Feb 8 2012, 06:43)

This is GTA, we always play a bad guy. How do you reason the mass killing of innocent civilians and cops?

Really the whole thing starts with deciding what is right and wrong. What's immoral and moral to each individual can be completely or slightly whatever, different to another human being. With all it's twists in between.

[turvus2]

QUOTE (Linki @ Monday, Feb 13 2012, 05:22)

QUOTE (turvus2 @ Sunday, Feb 12 2012, 22:48) QUOTE (Linki @ Monday, Feb 6 2012, 06:21) Between Niko and Darko, who was really worse? Having his eyes opened like this probably made him see the terrible things Niko and the squad were doing. He obviously didn't support them anymore and thus, betrayed them for money, perhaps as a way to separate himself from them. When he gave up his friends, I'm not sure he knew they were going to get killed. Because it seems he found out later they got killed and the guilt destroyed him. Then who knows what happened to him after that. It seems he became a junkie? So, seeing it from Darko's perspective, who was really in the wrong? May contain SPOILERS! I like where you are going with your post, but you are overcomplicating things. Darko betrayed his friends for blow. He had addiction already at the point of "selling out"! - thats a fact, listen to the cutscene. Betrayal is not surprising either - junkies are known to do the most disgusting things to get hands on drugs. Simple as that. I dont think he had illumination or even had a right to rat on his friends to die. That being said, his action had its guilt effects, but then again he got what he deserved. Besides, betraying friends cant be excused under any reasoning: having open eyes, trying to separate or not, thats as low as one can get (thats the whole morale GTA IV story - biggest antagonist is snake backstabbing piece of sh*t Dmitri). How can that person be better than Nico, who is the one who got betrayed, moreover spent 10 years of his life to pay back for his friends?! I do tend to over complicate things, but all for a greater cause: good discussion, which is what I've got. Good reply

Thanks
I'n glad there are people who are analyzing the story 4 years into the game. That indeed makes for an interesting discussion!

[cidamelo]

This is an interesting topic! I think GTA IV always wanted to put the "moral" on Niko but hellooooo GTA characters are bad! Niko did a lot of bad things in the game, like killing Ray Boccino!

[uramet]

I'm in two minds to post this as I hope it doesn't stray too far from this thread, though it is relevant to some of the points raised. I was messing about on the internet last night and came across an excerpt from a film documenting serbian fighters. I managed to find the whole thing on youtube and it's fascinating.

beware, there's no narration, no attempt to give context and if your expecting scenes of running gun battles you'll be disappointed. It just shows how wars are far more complicated than right or wrong.

[Toppers]

By definition, Niko's a bad guy -- he's a killer for hire. However, the guy's been left depressed after his experiences during the war, and sees that killing is the only thing open to him. He sees a lot of money in the killing business, so gets into it so he and his cousin can get rich fast and live a luxury life. Simple as that for me.

Whereas with Darko:

QUOTE (turvus2)

Darko betrayed his friends for blow. He had addiction already at the point of "selling out"! - thats a fact, listen to the cutscene. Betrayal is not surprising either - junkies are known to do the most disgusting things to get hands on drugs. Simple as that. I dont think he had illumination or even had a right to rat on his friends to die. That being said, his action had its guilt effects, but then again he got what he deserved.

That about sums it up.

This post has been edited by Toppers on Friday, Feb 24 2012, 19:19

[Mokrie Dela]

strange i've only just found this topic. I need to spend more time in here and not the V forum. It's like stepping out of nursery school and into a uni's library. Amazing!

But to Niko:

I find him a fascinating character. he's a pardox - both good and bad. I sense he's a bad guy who wants to be good, but bad is al that is open to him.

Some on his monologues are brilliant - the one to faustin in rigged to blow i think was established? and before getting Darko

"What is my trade Roman? I kill people because that is all that is open to me" or soemthing like that. You really get show the inside of him.

But there's no pretense, he's bad. Main characters usually are one or the other: bad man with good intentions (anti hero, niko), good man with bad habits(think Die hard).or so ive noticed.

The choices in IV were poorly done imo. as niko begins working, his choies should impact the rest of the game. Choose to spare targets instead of killing them for example, would have niko's character become more compasionate, more searching for a way out, working to find darko and help roman. Choose to kill and niko would become colder, less worried about his morals, chasing the buck. The story could change too.
The binary choice of fatalities at the wedding for example. the story could split due to your choices. eventually, the "good" (sparing people, compassion) ending would have Niko turning his back on the world of crime. The "bad" ending, with niko being fully immersed in the criminal world. That make sense?


That's the appeal of niko i think, he's a well developed character. Deep. Luis is the opposite, shallow and a bit boring tbh.

But still, good topic guys. Sorry if i've not added mch to it, been a long day with a 6:30 start I probably should get back to work

[woggleman]

I think he is a complex character who certainly has a good side. Look at how he helped that random ped Marnie turn her life around.

[locolow2011]

I think that Niko is a person with good intentions but made a lot of bad decisions ever since the war, he's trying to get away from his violent life, but at the same time he gets more and more into crime, he was looking for Darko because he wanted to end that chapter. A well written character, and it just got better in RDR.

[Linki]

QUOTE (Mokrie Dela @ Friday, Feb 24 2012, 12:49)

strange i've only just found this topic. I need to spend more time in here and not the V forum. It's like stepping out of nursery school and into a uni's library. Amazing! But to Niko: I find him a fascinating character. he's a pardox - both good and bad. I sense he's a bad guy who wants to be good, but bad is al that is open to him. Some on his monologues are brilliant - the one to faustin in rigged to blow i think was established? and before getting Darko "What is my trade Roman? I kill people because that is all that is open to me" or soemthing like that. You really get show the inside of him. But there's no pretense, he's bad. Main characters usually are one or the other: bad man with good intentions (anti hero, niko), good man with bad habits(think Die hard).or so ive noticed. The choices in IV were poorly done imo. as niko begins working, his choies should impact the rest of the game. Choose to spare targets instead of killing them for example, would have niko's character become more compasionate, more searching for a way out, working to find darko and help roman. Choose to kill and niko would become colder, less worried about his morals, chasing the buck. The story could change too. The binary choice of fatalities at the wedding for example. the story could split due to your choices. eventually, the "good" (sparing people, compassion) ending would have Niko turning his back on the world of crime. The "bad" ending, with niko being fully immersed in the criminal world. That make sense? That's the appeal of niko i think, he's a well developed character. Deep. Luis is the opposite, shallow and a bit boring tbh. But still, good topic guys. Sorry if i've not added mch to it, been a long day with a 6:30 start I probably should get back to work

I like your idea about choices, good post. And yes, if you want to retain your sanity I would steer clear of V forum.

This post has been edited by Linki on Saturday, Feb 25 2012, 08:50

[CassiusDio]

Interesting topic.

The situation in the Former Yugoslavia wars was extremely complicated. People who had lived next to each for years, grown up with each other and even loved each other turned pretty quickly into hating blood thirsty killers. The story shows, in a way the consequences of blindly following orders. Little Jacob and Niko have a conversation about Badman being a blood thirsty maniac ordering death easily. Jacob says that he follows the orders blindly, but Niko says that you have to be careful and believe in the cause.

I think that Darko sums up an even greater tragedy. Why did he hit the drugs and turn into a junkie? Is it possible he just couldn't cope with what his and Niko's squad were doing and the drugs put him into a place with less pain. All sides, be they Serb, Muslim or Croat were dirty, vicious and ruthless in that war. It's what hatred and intolerance does to people.

The my country (race or family) right or wrong attitude is shown here to be what it is. An mindless, vicious and a very simplistic excuse to do bad things to people. During the war in Croatia I saw a news report on the TV. The TV crew were filming a crowd of Croats, men, women and children. A young girl, couldn't have been older than ten, was shouting abuse about Serbs. She want them to be killed in the most painful way possible. She hated the Serbs and would happily kill any Serb that she could. The tragedy of this was that the girl did not know that her family was part Serbian. They had lived happily alongside and married Croats for generations.

Niko and Darko represent a side of humanity where ordinary people become capable of doing the vilest evil. The two are equally troubled, damaged and the damage is only showing itself in a different way. Darko destroyed himself with drugs and Niko destroyed himself with hate and anger.

On the whole as a few have mentioned here, GTA IV is a welcome relief from the usual video game fare of values that would have made a war criminal proud. Gun ho, pitiless and let's kill the scum. The attitude parodied in Republican Space Rangers.

[kubrickfan42]

[QUOTE]Indeed, it is told throughout IV's story that Niko committed many atrocities during the war. He seemed to be the one of the squad who would go out of his way to kill.

Where does it say that in the story? God..... Niko only kills people when they really deserve to die.
He's much like Scarface, if someone really deserves to live, he lets them live.

[SomeManForGTA]

I think both Niko and Darko are bad guys. Their past and the war is kind of complicated to me. I don't know why Darko had Nikos battalion killed. Was it for money alone, or was their other reasons?

Niko is a killer, plain and simple. He's half a psychopath and half a sane person. He seems to kill people without hesitation, unlike someone like Roman who sh*ts his pants when Niko kills Vlad.

But I don't think is Nikos fault. I think his past experience have f*ckED him mentally. He had an abusive father, was thrown into a war as a teenager. Found his aunt raped and killed. And even when he tried to erase his past and work in the merchant navy, doing less illegal activities, he was accused of stealing 2 million dollars worth of diamonds from a millionaire crime boss and was forced to find a new life.

These events and more have just made him depressed and angry, maybe even confused.

[Fisciletti]

I feel like Niko is a victim. He has a very bad luck.

[Ferocious Banger]

Honestly, it is impossible to separate 'good' from 'bad' in this fascinating story. But personally, 'cause I get emotionally attached to Niko whenever I play the game, I am going with Niko as the better character

[GTALegacy]

I know this is an old topic, but like others said, it's a welcome one compared to the GTA V forum that is fun, but caters to (what seems like) a much younger crowd.

I think the underlying theme of GTA IV's story is Duality.

Niko has a dual personality that is constantly at war with itself. He wants to do the right thing, but it is not as easy as it sounds and what is refreshing is it's not because he gets unwittingly pulled into a life of crime. It's because a part of him chooses not to change into something better. Hence, the duality... dual nature... Of himself always struggling with what he wants to be, or more importantly what he is capable of becoming should either side (dark, light) win.

This is why I also support the theory Niko was talking about himself during the church monologue.

One poster said R* would never have you play such a despicable character... But I think that is the point. Niko was young (20) and angry during the war and those two things motivated him to do things he regrets for the rest of his life since he has somewhat of a conscience. This is where the Duality comes into play. Niko is now 30, and realizes he can never take back the horrific thing(s) he might have done and is trying to make amends the only way he knows how.

Most anti-heroes follow the standard redemption story line where they start out bad and then slowly become good by the end of the story (they choose the light side). While those stories have their place, they aren't very realistic since most human beings often times DON'T change and pretty much stay the same, good or bad. I think this aspect of Niko's character is why he is so interesting, and if you pay attention to how the story (missions & choices) is constructed, R* tried to convey this aspect of human nature instead of just spoon-feed players a standard redemption arc that's been done a million times.

Duality also applies to Darko, even if it doesn't appear that way at first.

We only meet Darko in one cutscene, but that cutscene is like the climax of the story. His character had to be fleshed out enough to let players make the choice of either killing him, or letting him live, and I think the reason he was so effective is because he IS what Niko could have possibly become had Niko not been obsessed with anger and vengeance, ironically. Anger is a much better motivator than despair (drugs; wanting to escape) because even anger implies a hope whereas despair implies utter defeat. That's the real irony and why Darko is a reflection of Niko both metaphorically and physically as the character models are very similar; I believe R* did this on purpose for this very reason (compare and contrast).

So, who is the "bad" guy? Darko, or Niko?

I think this is the first GTA where the true dual nature of human beings was really explored to its fullest. Hence, there is no black or white version of good, or bad. Thus, Niko is neither good, nor bad in the traditional sense. Same applies to Darko.

Previous GTAs have always featured ambiguous characters, but there was still a sense the main protagonist was more or less "good" at his core and was just pulled back into a life of crime in order to survive and/or right a wrong. GTA IV is the first time this series has decided to not give players a definitive "right or wrong" morality and instead leave it up for interpretation as this thread indicates. This is something I hope they continue with in GTA V, and like I said in another thread...

I hope the main character(s) you play in future GTA games are the kind of characters on shows like "Breaking Bad" and "Weeds". Those characters aren't career criminals, aren't "born bad", or adrenaline junkies who like beating the system. They are ordinary people with families who turn to crime out of desperation and what makes them more interesting is they pose the question "What would YOU do if put in their situation?" that is far more engaging than just playing a typical anti-hero, or bad-guy-who-turns-good character.

This post has been edited by GTALegacy on Monday, Sep 17 2012, 16:21

[Linki]

Fantastic post Legacy. I'm glad you like the thread.

You've showed me some new insights. Niko really is more of a realistic character, than say, John Marston. He's like a real human being.

Indeed, GTAV hopefully will delight us as much as IV has with it's story.

[albanyave]

Really enjoy threads like this. I play games mostly for the story and what a story this is.

Niko does make a distinction between friends and who he thinks are basicly good people. He does forge relationships in this game and has a good sense of what's right and what's wrong. He has a problem with giving people a second chance. Even though he is faced with just that dilema on a few occations. He doesn't kill willy nilly.

Betrayal plays a huge role in how Niko sees the world. He has protected Roman from the truth of how his mother died. He also keeps in touch with his mother. That shows that Niko understands the importance of a true close relationship.

He's not a completely bad guy. He is more flawed and has not been taught correctly how to deal with life. So some times Niko's world is black or white, up or down, left or right, There's no in between for a compromise.