Son of Godzilla
Banned
DaMan121 said:
I'm not quite sure if this is a joke or not.
Anyways, what exactly is gained by Rockstar pushing the envelope? What's the benefit of having home invasions in a game?
GTA3:SA morality question?
- Thread starter jetjevons
- Start date
I'm not quite sure if this is a joke or not.
Anyways, what exactly is gained by Rockstar pushing the envelope? What's the benefit of having home invasions in a game?
the whole games = movies analogy falls apart at a certain point. sure, they're both considered mainstream entertainment, but how we perceive and receive the two mediums are fundamentally different. one is passive, the other is proactive. with movies, the director is, believe it or not, trying to say something. even the most unapologetically violent film has a message. with games, it's different. sure, it has a story arc and it has a beginning and an end. but every moment in between is left essentially empty for the player to define. it's this freeform definition...the power to engage our minds, force us to make snap decisions, play god in a lawless, emotionally inconsequential world that sets GTA:SA apart from gangsta rap, menace ii society, etc etc.
and like somebody already said, i'm not worried about any of you fucks getting negatively influenced or anything. i'm worried about inner city kids who lack parental guidance. i'm worried about all those kids i see on the 21 muni line each day. oh well, i guess i'm pathetic. whee!
and like somebody already said, i'm not worried about any of you fucks getting negatively influenced or anything. i'm worried about inner city kids who lack parental guidance. i'm worried about all those kids i see on the 21 muni line each day. oh well, i guess i'm pathetic. whee!
I dont know if this has already been discussed, but I wonder how they're going to do gta on the next gen consoles. I say this because obviously the graphics will be much better, characters will look and animate better. But imo, if the graphics for this game actually get good and show a somewhat real world, then the game would be kind of disturbing. It would be kind of like Postal 2 or something.
chespace said: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 dunno. Gantz had the opposite effect on me. After 14 volumes of it, I felt like nothing would ever shock me again in the world of movies/games/manga.
If you think the message of Boyz N Da Hood and Menace 2 Society is the same as GTA:SA you are very mistaken. Maybe it's just me but I didn't think those movies were a glorification of the gangbanger lifestyle. They were quite tragic as I recall.
What I've played of GTA:SA so far (bout 3 hours or so), there is no moral subjectivity on what you're doing.
What I've played of GTA:SA so far (bout 3 hours or so), there is no moral subjectivity on what you're doing.
SolidSnakex
Member
chespace said:
I don't get what people want Rockstar to do. Do you want them to stop making GTA's because there are some people who didn't have the right upbringing and so it could influence them? I'm not really sure what Rockstar could do over this. I mean wouldn't this be better suited for a social change in terms of getting kids the right parenting instead of banning products that most people aren't influenced by?
"But imo, if the graphics for this game actually get good and show a somewhat real world, then the game would be kind of disturbing. I"
I actually don't think Rockstar wants GTA to look real. If you compare it to other open ended games of its style, GTA is much more cartoony looking than any of them. Even compared to Rockstars owned Manhunt.
SolidSnakex said:
if corporations can (or at least give the semblance of) police themselves when it comes to responsibly discarding industrial waste, i don't see why rockstar can't flex a little self-censorship to limit its pollution on the seriously influential youth of america?
like somebody said above, do you really need a game with the added gameplay of home invasions and execution style robbery?
Exactly. Maybe I should shut up until I've played more of the game, but I'm really concerned about the fact that this could easily be viewed as an unmitigated glorification of gang violence.jetjevons said:
Part of me is happy that T2 keeps pushing the envelope and daring to be controversial. But I'm also concerned that we'll wake up a year from now to find that no major publisher will touch an M rated game because of all the public backlash. I can see even intelligent people, who didn't buy into the prior trumped-up controversies about game violence, getting riled up from watching footage of this game.
Son of Godzilla said:
Duh it was a joke. Violence = entertianment. Its a thoudand year old concept. Rockstar may be pushing the envelope in the videogame violence realm, but compared to other forms of entertainment, they have done nothing new.
Whats the benefit of having a plumber jump on platforms and turtles?... its fun?
SolidSnakex
Member
chespace said:
Then it becomes how far do you want them to go? There's so much about GTA that's extremely offensive to people that by the time they finished removing everything that offended people they'd be left with a shell of the game. It's offensive to one group of people that you can do home invasions its offensive to another group that you can go up and kill random people.
I don't want a diluted game experience because of some prude-pacifying "hero" mode or branching storyline. Stick to your guns(and drive-bys), Rockstar. Continue to explore the darkest recesses of humanity, while throwing in your own wild brand of humor. I dig it, and have no shame in that. Adults should be given enough credit when it comes to deciphering that line between reality and fantasy, right and wrong.
Instead of encouraging Rockstar to take the edge out of their titles for the kiddies, I'll be voting the Bush administration out of office for cutting 400 million in After School Programs. I'll forbid my young nephew the opportunity to play anything inappropriate. And I'll continue to support retailers who actually enforce ratings.
Instead of encouraging Rockstar to take the edge out of their titles for the kiddies, I'll be voting the Bush administration out of office for cutting 400 million in After School Programs. I'll forbid my young nephew the opportunity to play anything inappropriate. And I'll continue to support retailers who actually enforce ratings.
GTA may be the leading poster child right now for "out of control" videogame violence but games like Doom and Mortal Kombat have served that purpose well enough in the past, and they certainly had nothing to do with the depiction of violent events that hit as close to home as GTA does but were still deemed culpable as catalysts for real world violence. So was Ozzy Osbourne music. And Dungeons & Dragons.
Why would you have more faith in "all those kids i see on the 21 muni line each day" to correctly interpret the message of a movie (rather than just revel in its violence) vs. keep a videogame in perspective?chespace said:
kaching said:
good point, and guess i don't really have a lot of faith that those kids may get the hughes brothers message in menace ii society... my worry for GTA:SA has more to do with what i think are the main differences between movies and games.
plus, name another videogame that so closely mirrors their real-life predicament? certainly not mortal kombat and doom 3.
Alcibiades
Member
censorship would be stupid and unconstitutional, but regardless of how explicit CD's and R movies are sold, and regardless of the fact that I agree it's the responsibility of parents to watch their kids, I would glady support making M-rated purchases legal only with 18+ ID or a parent... even for stuff like Mortal Kombat (which I played myself as a kid in 5th/6th grade) and Hitman...
in fact, I don't care if Rockstar markets this with kids in mind an targets kids/teens, as long parents know what they kids eventually play, and there are laws to make sure the purchases of this game are for adults only...
After that, the parent really has no excuse since somehow, the kid more likely came into contact with an adult when purchasing the game, most likely the parents buying it for him...
in fact, I don't care if Rockstar markets this with kids in mind an targets kids/teens, as long parents know what they kids eventually play, and there are laws to make sure the purchases of this game are for adults only...
After that, the parent really has no excuse since somehow, the kid more likely came into contact with an adult when purchasing the game, most likely the parents buying it for him...
i think the point was that, at least in those movies, the message is there. i'm not sure if it is in GTA:SA or not, but i know a lot of people (casuals mainly), who play GTA just to do random acts of violence, like to see how long they can cause havoc and hold out against the cops. And i'm not just talking about kids at home with no supervision. i'm talking about grown men as well. The difference is that at least most adults can differentiate between the game and reality, and realize the consequences of replicating what happens in the game in real life. i'm reminded of the 13-year old who brought a gun to class and killed a schoolmate or teacher because of something that happened they did to him the day before, if i remember correctly. He didn't really think about his actions. He just had the gun to scare them. i don't even think GTA was released on PS2 at the time, but it's the minds of kids like that are what i'm worried about.kaching said:
i don't think Rockstar should censor their games any more than they have. i think the the thread starter, chespace, and others have simply brought up valid points about the content of GTA in today's context. i can't believe that, on a forum of gamers, some of you can't see the simple difference between a static medium like movies and one that's dynamic to the user like games.
It's an essential gameplay mechanic. "Is it fun?" Were the Mario games that featured it fun?
i do care if they intentionally market games like this to kids. In my eyes, it's no better than cigarette companies marketing to kids. In both cases you have something which is intended for adult use under the belief that children aren't mature enough to understand the ramifications of using it. Marketing a product that can have lifelong negative effects to children is criminal.
Before someone brings it up, i don't wholeheartedly believe in an arbitrary age for adulthood either, especially not 18 seeing the condition of a lot of 18-year olds these days, but it's better than not having a system like this in place at all.
Son of Godzilla
Banned
DaMan121 said:
I know it was a joke. I meant whether you were joking around or being an idiot. Truthfully I still can't tell.
If you can actually say there's no difference between a home invasion and a different way of platforming we've reached a gap no plumber can cross.
Anyways Che I think a comparison to pornography would be much more applicable. Nobody is trying to sell industrial waste. I dunno, that's not really satisfying at all. It'd then break down into some sort of joke of a legal restriction on ratings and I doubt that'd do anything but make the game more taboo.
Of course, if you can't really prevent people from playing the game, the only option is to prevent the game from being made. But blah that's not ever going to happen, especially after it's proven to be such a success. I don't think I'd want it to either, at least not forced.
I'd actually like to bring up Passion of the Christ again. I haven't actually seen it, but from what I've heard it uses violence to accentuate the brutality of Christ's death and what Christ went through. SA uses violence so there's something to do with open ended gameplay.
chespace said:
aoi tsuki said:
I see the differences, but I'm not so sure I see why they matter in this context. Movies aren't quite as static or non-interactive as you'd like to depict them. Nothing stopping me from fast-forwarding through the "boring" story parts to skip directly to the "interesting" violent parts, thus sidestepping the director's message as easily as any message in a videogame.
And in this era of freely available digital video editing tools, the possibilities become even more interactive...
Kanbee-san
Member
I kinda think morality is like a social norm. Everyone knows its wrong to enjoy someone elses pain or to do the wrong thing, yet they still do it.
I just cant help think the GTA wouldnt be so huge if it didnt have its billion gun happy america population (scuse the pun my allied friends).
What does anyone see in this game ? Seriously ? How is it fun ? Why is it fun ?
The only people i picture that will play this game are kids, pre-teens and psycho's. I am not saying its wrong to like, or play the game, but fuck me..... the subject matter is horrid.
I just cant help think the GTA wouldnt be so huge if it didnt have its billion gun happy america population (scuse the pun my allied friends).
What does anyone see in this game ? Seriously ? How is it fun ? Why is it fun ?
The only people i picture that will play this game are kids, pre-teens and psycho's. I am not saying its wrong to like, or play the game, but fuck me..... the subject matter is horrid.
In response to the Home Invasion question:
I think there's catharsis in Rockstar's stylized reality. They show all the ugliness of the real world, poke a helluva lot of fun at it, and give us the power over what we fear most.
In today's culture of fear, we're lucky to have this kind of outlet. In fact, I'd go so far as to say this game is a service to society!
I think concerns are misplaced, in this thread. I mean, honestly. San Andreas = industrial waste + pornography? It would take a warped mind to come to THAT conculsion.
Oh...
I think there's catharsis in Rockstar's stylized reality. They show all the ugliness of the real world, poke a helluva lot of fun at it, and give us the power over what we fear most.
In today's culture of fear, we're lucky to have this kind of outlet. In fact, I'd go so far as to say this game is a service to society!
I think concerns are misplaced, in this thread. I mean, honestly. San Andreas = industrial waste + pornography? It would take a warped mind to come to THAT conculsion.
Oh...
chespace said:hmm, i think my industrial waste example was misunderstood. or at least the point of self-censorship or control was missed.
The analogy was shit, Che. Rockstar's intended audience is harmed by their product how? And why should they be responsible for anyone outside of that clearly defined audience?
Goreomedy said:
it's not a matter of their intended audience. the industrial waste analogy was to show that bi-products happen. just as a corporation doesn't go into business to produce industrial waste (no, that's just the bi-product, or side effect of making products for their intended audience), rockstar doesn't make GTA hoping to inspire young impressionable children (who are not their intended audience) to commit random acts of violence. yet both examples (will) occur.
MightyHedgehog
Member
jetjevons said:
And that is where GTA fails the player as far as real choice is concerned. Like any artistic work, though, there a point of view that the creators have in mind. GTA is about being a criminal, pure and simple. Replacing the theme with a happy and highly saccharine lollipop, like Mario or Sonic, and retaining the gameplay design, will tell you that the series built on theme and backed up with solid sandbox gameplay. Fable, Morrowind, and many others already do this in their own ways and offer the player the full range of moral choices, with respect to their inclusion of good and evil actions and choices.
I agree with this, but highly doubt that GTA will do this in future installment anytime soon. Seeing and playing as both sides of the moral line in a game is always cool and GTA would be an excellent design in which to place an Elmore Leonard-style of storytelling to the game.
boutrosinit
Street Fighter IV World Champion
jetjevons said:
Yes, but Ichi the killer - although amusing and entertaining - is crap and will probably not be used as a reference point for anything, whereas GTA has influenced so much in this art form.
Anyway - good point. Having our poster child as an unscrupulous badass-em up isn't exactly waving our hands in the air going "hello! we are an art form worthy of your respect!". It just makes us look like lazy gratuitous cunts... though lazy gratuitous cunts who are having fun.
One day, perhaps we will have a big selling gaming equivalent of OldBoy (an AMAZING film you should all see), Usual Suspects, Pulp Fiction, LA Confidential, etc... Till, then games like ICO will sell like AIDS in a packet.
RE: Che Chou's comic - What the hell happened? Why did that poor little guy explode?
RE: Jevons control - If it's anything like those bent controls you set for yourself on HALO (or whatever game it was where I had to use your preset control scheme which forced me to administer a Stephen Hawking claw-handshape to play it), you can keep it... ;-)
Rockstar has answered the call of social responsibility by paying the ESRB to slap an M on the box and by following the ARC's code of conduct in print and televised ads. If retailers or parents drop the ball, point your finger there.
I'd love to discuss why you believe there's elevated concern when violence is mixed with interactivity some other time.
I'd love to discuss why you believe there's elevated concern when violence is mixed with interactivity some other time.
For the worries about the inner city kids playing this and then going out and imitating it, I would counter that the actual motivators that make people do this kind of stuff in real life are much stronger influences for violence than some fantasy videogame. If people are poor and hopeless in the inner city, they'll be drawn in by the success of actual dealers and gangbangers in their community more than from just playing a game about it.
Living amongst violence influences them to act out violence in the real world more than anything else. If someone is already desensitized about real life violence, playing a violent videogame isn't going to affect their world view any more negatively. The kind of people that would actually enact violence in the real world are already that kind of person and already have their bad influences.
The more interesting question is if this influences kids who have no existing real-world violent influences to become real-life violent people. I would say no, unless the child is mentally ill in some way and can't separate fantasy from reality or is too young to do so. But then, a kid under 7 shouldn't be playing this anyways.
Living amongst violence influences them to act out violence in the real world more than anything else. If someone is already desensitized about real life violence, playing a violent videogame isn't going to affect their world view any more negatively. The kind of people that would actually enact violence in the real world are already that kind of person and already have their bad influences.
The more interesting question is if this influences kids who have no existing real-world violent influences to become real-life violent people. I would say no, unless the child is mentally ill in some way and can't separate fantasy from reality or is too young to do so. But then, a kid under 7 shouldn't be playing this anyways.
MightyHedgehog
Member
^^^
Agreed.
Agreed.
Midway through bludgeoning a woman on the ground with a baseball bat, I begin to feel a little uncomfortable. A little evil. After hitting her several more times, I decide that if I went any further, it might qualify as twisted. I leave her be, take what money was left, and chase down someone fresh.
In that respect, GTA does not limit the gamer. It's a little dispiriting.
On another note, forgive me but screw the self-righteous Fable fans who characterize the absence of a "good path" as a flaw. Grand Theft Auto is materially and fundamentally based on the life of crime. For Rockstar to undertake such a divergence in opportunity, they'd be creating a completely different game and even infringing on what the series excels at.
But no! The year is 2013 and Rockstar has given me the choice! I will stop at red lights! Do all I can to avoid pedestrians! Not steal a car if mine blows up - hey, I can always walk everwhere! etc
In that respect, GTA does not limit the gamer. It's a little dispiriting.
On another note, forgive me but screw the self-righteous Fable fans who characterize the absence of a "good path" as a flaw. Grand Theft Auto is materially and fundamentally based on the life of crime. For Rockstar to undertake such a divergence in opportunity, they'd be creating a completely different game and even infringing on what the series excels at.
But no! The year is 2013 and Rockstar has given me the choice! I will stop at red lights! Do all I can to avoid pedestrians! Not steal a car if mine blows up - hey, I can always walk everwhere! etc
MightyHedgehog
Member
Socreges said:
Who said it was a flaw?
MightyHedgehog
Member
Socreges said:
I was responding in the context of providing the player with only one-type of solution, it fails the player who wants to be able to do either good or bad acts in a given situation. It's not a flaw, just a design decision based on the intent...which is about being a criminal. Look at what I quoted when posting the reply. Being a good guy and really only being the good guy in the majority of games out there does the same thing. It's all about the intent.
No, I saw what you quoted. Maybe in the future you need to consider the implications of fails if you're only pointing out the intent. And if you were only pointing out the intent, then that's redundant and, to your credit, you wouldn't start your reply by stating what isn't necessary.MightyHedgehog said:
boutrosinit
Street Fighter IV World Champion
chespace said:
Excellent point. What scares me is that Games are becoming advanced enough from a presentation standpoint (visuals, sound and overall atmospheric harmony) as a place people can totally visualise themselves in.
This is scary, simply because psychocybernetic law (brain science) says that the brain cannot distinguish memories from imagined visualisations. Conscious visualisations also work as 'goal crosshairs' for the mind. It's like when you're about to ask a hot girl out, you imagine her rejecting you and when you go up and ask her out, she rejects you, as you've effectively told your brain 'I want this to happen' and your subconsious has tasked your body to express body language, tone of voice and so on, to acheive this. Hence why all those high level biz execs bang on about positive visualisation and so on. Anyway, back on point...
You start drifting off in though about mowing down Mo Fos and believe it or not, it gets embedded within you as a memory and a goal. I even experienced a weird version of this myself. Taking a driving test after playing the game for a few hours, I imagined that I was going to knock into a shit driver next to me and mow down some prick in the middle of the road.
Obviously I didn't, but I was shocked how compelled I felt to do this. Very scary and just shows how powerful games can become.
MightyHedgehog
Member
*puts down bong*
Yeah. Still, my point is clear...at least...to me.
Poor choice of words, I suppose.
Yeah. Still, my point is clear...at least...to me.
Poor choice of words, I suppose.
MightyHedgehog
Member
Cool.
boutrosinit
Street Fighter IV World Champion
Mightyhedgehog; may I be the first to say that your picture of a small bag of weed is truly magnificent. Whoever took that photo has a fine eye for good photography.
MightyHedgehog
Member
Kinda brightens up the whole forum, wouldn't ya say?
One day, when Smell-O-Vision(TM) is possible via the internet, people all over the world will be quite pleased, I think.
One day, when Smell-O-Vision(TM) is possible via the internet, people all over the world will be quite pleased, I think.
boutrosinit
Street Fighter IV World Champion
MightyHedgehog said:
LOL! Yes! A bag of skunk however, would not. Especially the kind that rastas smell of (a bit like stale piss)
I see the problem your having. Your confusing reality, with fiction. NOTHING in GTA requires you to mimick the actual real life mechanics for a given action. Heck, if it was a light-gun game, and you had to shoot grannies and little kids, I could grant you that it was a little extreme. However it is not, and as some of you have failed to see how my Mario analogy applies, I shall elborate. You press a button, to perform a certain action, timing and fast reflexes are essential. Thats all GTA is, heck thats all any game is. The representations of these actions on screen are sometimes completely beside the point, thats why we can still enjoy games like Tetris (its just a bunch of nlocks for gods sakes). Ofcourse complexity, difficulty, and variety add to gameplay, but we arent arguing whether GTA is a good game or not. PLAYING GTA is no different than PLAYING Mario. Thats my point.
Dont be so sure. If Ashcroft gets his way, there will be alot of things that will stop being made. Ofcourse simple minds search for simple solutions, or solutions that look good on bumber stickers.
I disagree. It's called Grand Theft Auto for a reason. If you don't want to do drive-bys and be forced to kill mass amounts of people instead of doing the right thing, don't play it. Although, I do think the series is heading in the wrong direction. It was a lot better when the mob was in it and stuff like that. Now it seems like it's ALL street gangs. It'd still be fun to play, but I don't like the idea.