Maybe it's just me, but for what sounds like such a seminal, landmark work of interactive enteratinment, where you can do so much and reflect your personality through gameplay choices in so many ways, wouldn't it be nice if you could actually forward the story by not doing anything evil? I know the non-mission related ancilliary play of all GTA games lets you do positive things, but I'd kind of like to see future GTAs incorporate a Fable style good/evil story branch where you can get to the end of the game by doing the right thing. Yes, I realize the game is called Grand Theft Auto for a reason, but I just find it a little sad that the franchise that is breaking the most new ground in the interactive space also forces you to go on drive-bys, etc. if you want to forward the story.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
GTA3:SA morality question?
- Thread starter jetjevons
- Start date
Pedigree Chum
Banned
to all of your questions, the answer is yes.
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
they're only catering for the "be a virtual badass" market.
Which turns out to be absolutely everyone.
EDIT: The title is also "GRAND THEFT AUTO" so.....
Which turns out to be absolutely everyone.
EDIT: The title is also "GRAND THEFT AUTO" so.....
This is kinda something I've thought about as well, if not exactly along the same lines. San Andreas kind of accentuates the impact of its violence and all the rest, because in terms of presentation it has the most "realistic" feel of the GTAs. GTA3 took place in a sort of bland, generic world, while Vice City was an exaggerated caricature -- San Andreas, in comparison, looks very real and very specific, so it feels more than a little off when you're cheerfully shooting up random residential neighborhoods.
The Los Santos slums look almost exactly like North Richmond on the east bay, up near where I used to live, so maybe that's part of it.
Edit: The personalities of the characters are another factor. Tommy Vercetti was obviously bad to the bone, and the GTA3 guy didn't have any personality to speak of. CJ gives you the impression that he could be a basically decent guy, if he weren't always running around killing people...
DFS.
The Los Santos slums look almost exactly like North Richmond on the east bay, up near where I used to live, so maybe that's part of it.
Edit: The personalities of the characters are another factor. Tommy Vercetti was obviously bad to the bone, and the GTA3 guy didn't have any personality to speak of. CJ gives you the impression that he could be a basically decent guy, if he weren't always running around killing people...
DFS.
Property of Jumpship
Banned
The only part of the game that is a little unnerving is the home invasion stuff. Breaking into an 80 year old womans house, capping her and then stealing her stuff might cross the line a bit, IMO. Ive just become so used to killing people that are awake, walking around, and getting in my way that being able to kill someone in there sleep creeps me out.
Seems like the only thing they have left to add to the series. Maybe they just don't want to give people the ability to be a good guy. I feel like a dick playing those games, I can't do it.
Heh, thats different. BO clearly crosses the line into total fantasy, whereas the GTA games portray shit you could actually do to people. I think there is a difference.. at least in my mind there is.
Heh, thats different. BO clearly crosses the line into total fantasy, whereas the GTA games portray shit you could actually do to people. I think there is a difference.. at least in my mind there is.
Property of Jumpship
Banned
dark10x said:I suppose you've never played Hitman?
Yeah, but in Hitman you are paid to kill people. Oh fuck it, granny's going down!
jetjevons said:
You wrote about it in your review... for Saturn version of quake was it? I don't know, always stuck with me, prior to dual analogue sticks it was the only solution for console FPS, seems obvious now but the was the first correct?
edit: do you HAVE to kill people in their sleep while you rob them?
levious said:
So, I don't know the answer to that question, but the fact it even got asked sums up really why I'm worried about the direction of our biz a little these days.
Jevons control was actually in Duke Nukem 3D and Quake for Saturn. My buddies at Lobotomy put it in for me so I could have independent head/body movement on a console fps.
PanopticBlue
Member
jetjevons said:
I've enjoyed all the GTA games thus far, and am currently enjoying SA. That said, I agree with all of what you say here. When I read the threads currently on page 1 of the gaf, talking about the long lines at EB and gamestop and how there's a big a turnout for the game, it makes me kinda sad. This is not a GTA bash, so please don't misunderstand, but I think it's a reflection on society when a game of this nature brings people in by the bucketloads. A lot of the missions really do seem to glorify gang-violence and as I play the game, I sometimes think to myself, "this isn't right." Anyway, it's just entertainment and I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy violence, but it's something to think about.
SolidSnakex
Member
In previous GTA's you never had to kill anyone in the main story that was actually innocent. They were all evil in their own way, so I don't really see the problem with that in comparison to other games. Any action game is going to have you killing bad guys. During the side missions you can choose to be good or evil.
In GTA you don't have to be the greatest caid of all time. It's up to you. Like some guy said, the main missions aren't all that harmfull and pretty innocent actually. This one will be even more story driven and even less sick i suppose. But keep in mind it's a story about a vengeance. You play the role or you don't after all. In GTA SA, you'll be the CJ you want. I suppose you can get a nice feeling by finishing the game with respectfully low stats. GTA rewards you where YOU want to be rewarded.
GOTY by the way. (who didn't know that?)
Hi Knightmare, i was a every month reader of Gamefan. You guys were ruling back then.
GOTY by the way. (who didn't know that?)
Hi Knightmare, i was a every month reader of Gamefan. You guys were ruling back then.
i think for the first time ever, i feel a bit weird about violence portrayed in a videogame. in fact, i'm downright scared about the sort of imitation gangbanging that this game may inspire.
i'm not saying it's guaranteed to, or that it should be censored, but after playing games for most of my life, i am finally starting to understand what liebermann was talking about. my argument has always been, "yeah well educated, intelligent people can tell the difference between reality, and virtual reality. gaming shouldn't cause anymore violence than any other segment of the media."
but gaming's mass popularity the last few years has really made me rethink that statement. the problem isn't that intelligent people won't continue to do the right thing. the problem is that a game that glorifies getting out of the ghetto through extreme violence hits a little too close to home for america. unlike gangsta movies where directors will often put in a morality play or redemption for its characters, GTA has always been about doing whatever the fuck you want, whenever the fuck you want.
the consequences? well you die and lose the weapon you were holding and some cash. big deal in a game sense... which is perfect to encourage gameplay experimentation. but in real life? every bullet ends a life. innocent lives.
the problem again: there are a shitload of uneducated and impressionable people out there who resemble CJ.
hmm, is it okay to shoot the convenant aliens? i don't know. don't ask me. after reading 14 volumes of gantz, i'm starting to feel bad whenever i plug a helpless covenant grunt.
i'm not saying it's guaranteed to, or that it should be censored, but after playing games for most of my life, i am finally starting to understand what liebermann was talking about. my argument has always been, "yeah well educated, intelligent people can tell the difference between reality, and virtual reality. gaming shouldn't cause anymore violence than any other segment of the media."
but gaming's mass popularity the last few years has really made me rethink that statement. the problem isn't that intelligent people won't continue to do the right thing. the problem is that a game that glorifies getting out of the ghetto through extreme violence hits a little too close to home for america. unlike gangsta movies where directors will often put in a morality play or redemption for its characters, GTA has always been about doing whatever the fuck you want, whenever the fuck you want.
the consequences? well you die and lose the weapon you were holding and some cash. big deal in a game sense... which is perfect to encourage gameplay experimentation. but in real life? every bullet ends a life. innocent lives.
the problem again: there are a shitload of uneducated and impressionable people out there who resemble CJ.
hmm, is it okay to shoot the convenant aliens? i don't know. don't ask me. after reading 14 volumes of gantz, i'm starting to feel bad whenever i plug a helpless covenant grunt.
chespace said:i think for the first time ever, i feel a bit weird about violence portrayed in a videogame. in fact, i'm downright scared about the sort of imitation gangbanging that this game may inspire.
i'm not saying it's guaranteed to, or that it should be censored, but after playing games for most of my life, i am finally starting to understand what liebermann was talking about. my argument has always been, "yeah well educated, intelligent people can tell the difference between reality, and virtual reality. gaming shouldn't cause anymore violence than any other segment of the media."
but gaming's mass popularity the last few years has really made me rethink that statement. the problem isn't that intelligent people won't continue to do the right thing. the problem is that a game that glorifies getting out of the ghetto through extreme violence hits a little too close to home for america. unlike gangsta movies where directors will often put in a morality play or redemption for its characters, GTA has always been about doing whatever the fuck you want, whenever the fuck you want.
the consequences? well you die and lose the weapon you were holding and some cash. big deal in a game sense... which is perfect to encourage gameplay experimentation. but in real life? every bullet ends a life. innocent lives.
the problem again: there are a shitload of uneducated and impressionable people out there who resembles CJ.
hmm, is it okay to shoot the convenant aliens? i don't know. don't ask me. after reading 14 volumes of gantz, i'm starting to feel bad whenever i plug a helpless covenant grunt.
In GTA, it's the story giving you the strongest message and it's not all that sick. What the player do by himself for fun stays more in the "game realm" even for the retarded.
People are better playing GTA than watching a freaking lot of bad movies out there, bad hip-hop songs (yes there's bad hip-hop songs just as good ones), and look at all other shitty medias that are just as fucking to blame than videogames. Even magazines and music videos sucks and transport bad and immoral values. And GTA isn't all about money and bitches. Everybody can find what he likes in it.
Yeh. In San Andreas the consequences of any action are essentially nil, and the suggested response to affront is tactical nuke-level retaliation. Jesus, look at that mission with the construction foreman.
I dunno. Artists aren't bound to lead by example. As always, anybody using a videogame as a guide to their actions in daily life has problems that you wouldn't solve by just taking their GTA away.
If all else fails, Che, I'll burn you off the 19 volumes of Beck. No moral dilemmas there.
DFS.
I dunno. Artists aren't bound to lead by example. As always, anybody using a videogame as a guide to their actions in daily life has problems that you wouldn't solve by just taking their GTA away.
If all else fails, Che, I'll burn you off the 19 volumes of Beck. No moral dilemmas there.
DFS.
I don't think the media attention surrounding this game will be much different than what happened with rap in the late 80s/early 90s and with "hood" movies in the early to mid 90s... and the influence doesn't seem to be much different either. Granted, you can control it and make the guy do all kinds of crime, but it's over the top enough to keep itself semi-unbelievable... note that most of the folks who've blamed GTA for their crimes are fruit loops.
But I agree, it would be cool to see two play modes, one for the law and the other against.
But I agree, it would be cool to see two play modes, one for the law and the other against.
Two choices:
True Crime
The Getaway (bjork, this one shows you both sides)
There are plenty of games where you get to play as the good guy and do good deeds. Why must you bitch about one of the FEW games that lets you be the bad guy? GTA:SA is no more harmful than gangsta rap being blasted into your ears 24/7... in fact its less harmful as most people dont even take video games seriously but music hits home.
True Crime
The Getaway (bjork, this one shows you both sides)
There are plenty of games where you get to play as the good guy and do good deeds. Why must you bitch about one of the FEW games that lets you be the bad guy? GTA:SA is no more harmful than gangsta rap being blasted into your ears 24/7... in fact its less harmful as most people dont even take video games seriously but music hits home.
Razoric said:
Yeah, that's kinda what I was trying to say... antibiotics are messing with me tonight. Anyway, people would see someone like NWA and be like "I identify with them and their message", but outside of some REALLY odd ducks, I don't see anyone following the exploits of their video game favorites... the first one that comes to mind is the German guy who was known as Squall and he killed his parents or something... and FF is supposed to be about good stuff...
chespace said:i think for the first time ever, i feel a bit weird about violence portrayed in a videogame. in fact, i'm downright scared about the sort of imitation gangbanging that this game may inspire.
i'm not saying it's guaranteed to, or that it should be censored, but after playing games for most of my life, i am finally starting to understand what liebermann was talking about. my argument has always been, "yeah well educated, intelligent people can tell the difference between reality, and virtual reality. gaming shouldn't cause anymore violence than any other segment of the media."
but gaming's mass popularity the last few years has really made me rethink that statement. the problem isn't that intelligent people won't continue to do the right thing. the problem is that a game that glorifies getting out of the ghetto through extreme violence hits a little too close to home for america. unlike gangsta movies where directors will often put in a morality play or redemption for its characters, GTA has always been about doing whatever the fuck you want, whenever the fuck you want.
the consequences? well you die and lose the weapon you were holding and some cash. big deal in a game sense... which is perfect to encourage gameplay experimentation. but in real life? every bullet ends a life. innocent lives.
the problem again: there are a shitload of uneducated and impressionable people out there who resemble CJ.
hmm, is it okay to shoot the convenant aliens? i don't know. don't ask me. after reading 14 volumes of gantz, i'm starting to feel bad whenever i plug a helpless covenant grunt.
Well put. I love action games, but the GTA series turned me off from inception. When I think of the games I played as a kid (starting with the 2600 through the Genesis) and look at a game like San Andreas, it frightens me a little; I have a 2-year old daughter and I can't imagine what kind of games will be popular have as she grows up.
With stuff like GTA getting so popular, it can only lead to more of them, and I think this kind of game will be even more prevalant in the next generation of systems.
GhaleonEB said:
You act like that's all there is being made. Video Gaming as a whole have grown since we were kids. We now have a huge array of gaming styles to choose from. You don't want your daughter playing GTA? How about the 1000s of other games out there that have not one drop of blood? Fuck guys the sky isnt falling.
Razoric said:
There's other games being made?!?!?
Of course there will be other game out there - just look at some of the wonderful stuff in this gen. My concern is that games with content such as the GTA series will become more prevalant, and things are already trending that way. It concerns me when the most anticipated game of the year glamorizes drive-bys and murder. If the tone was something like Menace 2 Society, that would be one thing - but this series is all about, "Whee! Look at me beat up the hooker!"
No thanks.
GhaleonEB said:
Really? Wow I didn't know there were so many hookers in the game.
Games will become like the Music and Movie Industry. How many pornos are there? How many horror movies are there? How many satanic albums? Gangsta albums? It's amazing out of everything out there you are scared of a video game that might cause a few more games to let you be the bad guy.... gta has had more of an effect on games adding "free-roam" than anything else.
Can't wait to beat up some hookers tomorrow. Hopefully they removed the story altogether... gimme a bat and some hookers and I'm set.
belgurdo said:
I dont think RockStar is making any kind of moral argument at all, just a game that they think will be fun. GTA is satire at its most extreme, there is NOTHING different with this, compared to a Tarantino or Scorcese movie.. apart from ofcourse the interactivity. If you cant differentiate between a bunch of pixels and real life, you have serious problems.
Im not saying that entertainment cant effect the state of mind of SOME people, it clearly can (at the very least it gives them new ideas to cause harm). But the notion that we can alter our entire morality system just by playing GTA is absurd.
Jugendstil
Member
Anyone who looks to videogames for some sort of arugment on morality is an idiot. Like Warpig said, artists are under no obligation to lead by example. This whole argument makes me alternately sad and furious. Stop patting yourselves on the back for managing to be shocked and apalled by simulated violence. It's pathetic.
Jugendstil said:
I'm not so much shocked and appalled by what's in GTA:SA as by how popular it is going to be. GTA:SA is probably going to be one of the fastest and best selling games of all time. It also pushes boundaries in terms of virtual violence and digital depravity. The two accomplishments are not mutually exclusive I feel.
The GTA series enormous success means it gets held up as the poster child of the games biz. I understand that a lot of gamers feel it totally deserves this accolade, simply because of all the gameplay innovations. I just wish the themes were a little more wholesome.
I mean, you don't see, say, Ichi The Killer making $300 million at the box office.
Also, I wonder what the NAACP is going to have to say about this game?
SolidSnakex
Member
jetjevons said:
That's because Ichi really is about showing you as much blood as possible, there's not much else there. GTA sells and gets the praise it gets because its a great game. Yes it's violent, but that doesn't mean its suddenly not fun because of that.
I don't really get all the hate for it. The stuff GTA is based on are popular and well respected movies/music. Is violence like that ok for movies but wrong for games?
SolidSnakex said:
I think the things you can do in the game (ie kill hookers after having sex with them) helped it sell more. That sort of stuff though has nothing to do with it being a great game. It was more to do with word of mouth. If you took this "questionable" stuff out, I don't think it sells the massive amounts it does currently, but still in the millions. Yet it would still remain an awesome game.
SolidSnakex
Member
pilonv1 said:
I'm not saying that stuff doesn't have part in its success because that's part of the whole open ended feel. That's really the games main appeal, it's a very well constructed open ended game. Most games always have you working on some sort of goal, but with GTA you can start it up and play hours without ever actually going into any sort of mission.
I think that being evil is actually more fun in a game that gives you a choice between good and evil. Part of the sadistic pleasure of acting maliciously is knowing that, in doing so, you had but forewent an ethical option. Consider KOTOR. I doubt that falling to the dark side would have been nearly as enjoyable had I no choice in the matter.
The thing is that television, movies, music, and games are the babysitters for a lot of kids. There's little to no parental supervision. Games aren't the only culprit here, but they're debatably the most immersive. There's only been a handful of games i can remember really immersing me to the point to where i forgot i was pushing plastic buttons to make the characters do what i wanted. But for someone who literally sees a game screen more than their parents, and don't even have good training to begin with, the effect could be more severe.
While I'm not personally troubled by GTA:SA, I am concerned about what Take Two is doing. They are clearly at this point bucking for controversy, and they are pushing the envelope further and further out to generate it. The outcry over this game is going to be pretty severe, and I hope it does not come back to hurt the industry as a whole.
SolidSnakex
Member
Rhindle said:
I think someone has to do it. Alot of people always talk about games being accepted on the same level as movies and such, but if they're held back from doing exactly what movies have been doing for years then its not going to ever happen. What SA is doing is really no different from a Boyz in the Hood or Menace 2 Society. To tell a story like SA is trying to tell it needs what's in the game.