Support NeoGAF

[kumanoki]

Okay. I'm a married gamer. Here's my dilemma: I recently purchased GTA:SA and own GTA:VC and GTA3. My wife feels uncomfortable watching these games due to content. Therefore, we have an agreement that I will only play these games when she is not in the house. Recently, she's given me a reprieve on SA, mainly because of my sad puppy dog eyes and a fervent promise not to run over pedestrians. Or kill hookers.

Arguments for and against these games goes something like this:
Me: It's a GAME.
Her: Which condones violent actions against innocent people. I don't care if you play Metal Gear Solid, because you are killing Bad Guys. The people in GTA are innocent.
Me: The people in GTA are pixels.
Her: Okay, the concept of violence against innocent people bothers me.
Me: I don't have a problem with it because the game itself is not real, and you know full well I'm not going to go out and do these things in real life.
Her: It's not about whether you will or won't. Why do you give these people money to allow you to do these things, even in a virtual setting?
Me: Well, it's a fun game.
Her: Killing innocents is fun? Murdering hookers is fun?
Me: I'm..uh, not getting any tonight, am I?
Her: Go play your game.

Have you and a signifigant other (or Mom, or Dad) had this type of argument before?

 

[Teknopathetic]

No, my dad realizes that what's fake is fake and what's real is real. If you're mixing the two together, you're a fucking nutjob (no offense to "Her").

 

[Grubdog]

It pretty much comes down to her being weak. Don't give in to the weakness, play it MORE! People like her worry me.

 

[Property of Jumpship]

Tell her to not watch you play. And cook dinner. And get you a beer. Or how about when you play she just gives you a blow-job. There problem solved.

 

[neptunes]

Tell her to not watch you play. And cook dinner. And get you a beer. Or how about when you play she just gives you a blow-job. There problem solved.

Suggestion: EDIT, QUICK!

 

[Property of Jumpship]

Why there's nothing offensive there. Plus the mods removed my edit button.

 

[The Faceless Master]

divorce

 

[mCACGj]

My mom just laughs...and finds the concept of picking up a hooker, and then dumping her off and killing her to get your money back hilarious. It's almost a family event when I play.

 

[TheGreenGiant]

you should listen to her. Arguments will build up.. and then she's leave you for the next schmoe who comes along.

One who doesn't play GTA. Where do you live?

 

[Ninja Scooter]

tell her "You without me is like Harold Melvin without the Blue Notes...You ain't NEVER goin platinum!"

 

[Goreomedy]

My significant other is a bit of a prude as well. He has never gone so far as to deny me access to games or films with violent content when he's in the house. But we have discussed the level of violence in the most popular games out there, and if the horror or exploitation films I watch have any negative effect on their viewers. He eventually just leaves the room if the content of my entertainment doesn't agree with him.

But recently...

He watched me play a bit of San Andreas, and was really digging the simplistic Sims-like features. So he asked me to create a new save game for him so he could fart around. Just a few minutes ago, I walked through the living room on my way to get a soda. I watched him chase down a guy with a bat, bash his brains in, and take his money.

Me: "What the hell are you doing?"

Him: "I need $500 for Cornrows."

 

[aku:jiki]

Only one opposed to it, who I've actually talked to, was a quick conversation with my dad after the TV news did a particularily sensationalistic thing on Vice City when it was released. Apparently, the point of that game was to randomly beat up innocent people with a golf club. I must've missed that mission.

Anyway, my dad had no idea so he believed the news and thought it was sick. I just told him about how the game really works, how the cops'll start chasing you if you commit crimes and such, and he was pretty much cool with it after that. Also -- and this might just be me -- but don't you think the innocent people killing get old after a full 30 seconds? I can't be arsed to stop my trip to the next mission just to get out and kill some old ladies.

What I mean by that is... If you focus on missions when she's around, and she has no problem with the killing of "bad guys", shouldn't she be ok with that?

 

[Son of Godzilla]

No. Because I agree with the argument.

Given all other factors being the same, I will choose the game that doesn't provide ability or incentive to murder innocents represented by polygons. However, GTASA fucking rocks and there isn't any other game that comes close to providing that type of gameplay. MMORPGs/StupidshitlikeMorrowind are close, but rely far too much on leveling as a means of advancement. Granted there is kind of leveling hidden in the game, it's not the controlling factor of what you can or can't do.

You need to stress that the game itself is loads of fun, not that going around killing people is.

 

[belgurdo]

Her: Which condones violent actions against innocent people. I don't care if you play Metal Gear Solid, because you are killing Bad Guys.

Wonder who she voted for.

 

[akascream]

People that try to disassociate the GTA series from violence are kidding themselves.

 

[SteveMeister]

She has every right to feel that way about the game. As her husband, you should respect her feelings and not play the game when she's around. And laying on the guilt trip (puppy dog eyes) doesn't help matters either

 

[BuddyC]

Haha, you're married.

 

[Crazymoogle]

Her: Which condones violent actions against innocent people.

The only way you can get through this kind of closed mind is to really get the game mechanics through. It should be incredibly obvious the game doesn't condone violent action (you are penalized in the form of wanted stars, which in turn can eventually cost you money, weapons, and/or a hospital stay. Killing sprees count only against specific "enemy groups", and as far as I can recall there are no instances where killing an "innocent" is part of the mission.

It's funny when I hear this sort of thing, because from my perspective, GTA is a lot more truthful on the consequences than most films would be. The cause and effect are blatantly obvious and the player has to keep an eye on it (even if its just to stay out of the way of burning vehicles).

Her: It's not about whether you will or won't. Why do you give these people money to allow you to do these things, even in a virtual setting?

It's a question of choice. If someone is uncomfortable about choice, stick to movies.

Good luck.

 

[Crazymoogle]

He watched me play a bit of San Andreas, and was really digging the simplistic Sims-like features. So he asked me to create a new save game for him so he could fart around. Just a few minutes ago, I walked through the living room on my way to get a soda. I watched him chase down a guy with a bat, bash his brains in, and take his money.

Me: "What the hell are you doing?"

Him: "I need $500 for Cornrows."

:lol :lol

 

[Norse]

Okay. I'm a married gamer. Here's my dilemma: I recently purchased GTA:SA and own GTA:VC and GTA3. My wife feels uncomfortable watching these games due to content. Therefore, we have an agreement that I will only play these games when she is not in the house. Recently, she's given me a reprieve on SA, mainly because of my sad puppy dog eyes and a fervent promise not to run over pedestrians. Or kill hookers.

Arguments for and against these games goes something like this:
Me: It's a GAME.
Her: Which condones violent actions against innocent people. I don't care if you play Metal Gear Solid, because you are killing Bad Guys. The people in GTA are innocent.
Me: The people in GTA are pixels.
Her: Okay, the concept of violence against innocent people bothers me.
Me: I don't have a problem with it because the game itself is not real, and you know full well I'm not going to go out and do these things in real life.
Her: It's not about whether you will or won't. Why do you give these people money to allow you to do these things, even in a virtual setting?
Me: Well, it's a fun game.
Her: Killing innocents is fun? Murdering hookers is fun?
Me: I'm..uh, not getting any tonight, am I?
Her: Go play your game.

Have you and a signifigant other (or Mom, or Dad) had this type of argument before?

Dude, you have a great wife with a brain in her head. Be thankful, she has a point. And getting some is enough to not buy the game. hehe

 

[Ford Prefect]

Video games corrupt.

 

[aku:jiki]

Dude, you have a great wife with a brain in her head.

I don't see where you're getting that from. I'm certainly not trying to diss on the guy's wife at all, since I don't know her, but the story he tells makes her sound kind of ignorant and too stubborn to learn how the game works.

(This could be kumanoki's own fault for not describing it accurately, of course.)

People that try to disassociate the GTA series from violence are kidding themselves.

Not as much as people who try to seem smart by making an observation that is actually nowhere to be found in the thread in which they're posting.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

It pretty much comes down to her being weak. Don't give in to the weakness, play it MORE! People like her worry me.

WTF? People like you worry me.

 

[kumanoki]

To Respond:

Wonder who she voted for.

I'm pretty sure she voted Democrat.

You need to stress that the game itself is loads of fun, not that going around killing people is.

She realizes that. She's not close-minded at all. She was willing to sit through me playing SA to see the mechanics of the game, and decided that the incentives for doing mission-oriented goals was okay.

divorce

Nah. She says she'd kill me first. And if you don't think that doesn't jive with her ethics, there's a good chance that I wouldn't be innocent.

It pretty much comes down to her being weak. Don't give in to the weakness, play it MORE! People like her worry me.

I don't know if I agree with your 'weak' theory. Especially not when we argue. She isn't stopping me from playing the game. She would never do that. We agreed that I wouldn't play the games when she's home out of mutual respect for our shared space. Right now, that's not so much of a problem because she's tolerating the game, even the Jizzy B part. In fact, she liked seeing the main character 'rescue' a hooker for a change.

What I mean by that is... If you focus on missions when she's around, and she has no problem with the killing of "bad guys", shouldn't she be ok with that?

She is. Didn't I say that?

She has every right to feel that way about the game. As her husband, you should respect her feelings and not play the game when she's around. And laying on the guilt trip (puppy dog eyes) doesn't help matters either

But it's new. Brand new. I just got it a week and a half ago. I don't play thirty games a year like I used to. Puppy dog eyes were neccesary.

I don't see where you're getting that from. I'm certainly not trying to diss on the guy's wife at all, since I don't know her, but the story he tells makes her sound kind of ignorant and too stubborn to learn how the game works.

(This could be kumanoki's own fault for not describing it accurately, of course.)

It's not that she's ignorant of the game. She's watched me, at some point or another, play through all three games. She knows the mechanics of the first two, and based her assessment of SA on the previous games. When I explained some of the subtle differences in Sa to her, she was willing to listen, and even to compromise.
Now, about her being stubborn.....

 

[DarienA]

I just asked my significant other to comment on this thread... her response was... "you're kidding me right?"

The missus has spoken.

 

[tenchir]

While it is true that the game does penalize you for killing people assuming you "got caught" doing it, it is pretty easy getting away from law enforcement. The game really takes it easy on you for serious crimes, for example:

You can easily steal a car, and nothing happens to you.
You burgerized house and nothing happens to you.
You can get away with hit and run.
You can get away with killing people/hookers as long as you don't get caught.
Assuming that you get caught killing someone and couldn't hide from them, they let you off the hook for X amount of times.

I am not going to list other wrong things, such as not giving you the choice of not doing bad things. I don't really care if this game is moral or immoral, it's the gameplay thats matter.... unfortunately I don't like really opened game like this.

 

[nitewulf]

Plus the mods removed my edit button.

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

 

[Miburou]

I'm surprised no one mentioned it yet:

FHUTA!

 

[theo]

hey, if wal-mart sells it, then it must be a-ok! :lol

 

[kumanoki]

I would like to remind the wife-haters that, although she is morally opposed, she is tolerant of the game and of my playing it. She just doesn't like it.

While it is true that the game does penalize you for killing people assuming you "got caught" doing it, it is pretty easy getting away from law enforcement. The game really takes it easy on you for serious crimes, for example:

You can easily steal a car, and nothing happens to you.
You burgerized house and nothing happens to you.
You can get away with hit and run.
You can get away with killing people/hookers as long as you don't get caught.
Assuming that you get caught killing someone and couldn't hide from them, they let you off the hook for X amount of times.

Actually, this was one of the argument points which was brought up during one of our more in-depth disagreements about the GTA series.

 

[Grubdog]

WTF? People like you worry me.

Please explain!

Also, I haven't really been following the story in GTA SA at all, even though i'm nearly finished the game, I hardly know any of the characters names and forget pretty much everything besides the missions i've done and the actual things i've done in the game. Different people focus on different parts of things I guess, I just find your wifes view hard to understand. =\

 

[DDayton]

I've yet to see how the wife's arguement is false. I don't see how you can look at GTA and NOT see a game riddled with unfavorable moral issues. That's the selling point, to an extent -- it may not be the totality of the game, but the glorification of violence and crime is a major selling point.

I am curious to see what the "casual consumer" thinks of the ending, though... and whether it will change any minds about the game or themes... or not.

 

[cka]

You need to tell her that every NPC in the game that you can kill is either a baby murderer or a drug kingpin. That will set her straight. Hell, even let the game idle and make her listen to the NPC chatter, they quite frequently talk about drug deals in code.

 

[kumanoki]

You need to tell her that every NPC in the game that you can kill is either a baby murderer or a drug kingpin. That will set her straight. Hell, even let the game idle and make her listen to the NPC chatter, they quite frequently talk about drug deals in code.

I can just hear her sweet voice echoing 'what a weak justification' in my mind....

 

[Justin Bailey]

This sounds like something my ex would say, thank God I'm with someone now that's on the same page as I am.

 

[Date of Lies]

I think the whole argument of "it's bad to kill innocent people" is void, how can anyone prove that the people they kill are "innocent"? Innocent of what? You just kill whoever the game tells you to kill, no real questions asked. If you don't, you can't progress, so you kill people to continue playing, that's all. Killing people is a game, that's already disturbing enough, who the hell cares if they're 'innocent'? Well all the goombas ever did in Mario Bros. is walk around and that didn't keep me from squishing the living shit out of them.

Violence is still violence, in any videogame and the fact that someone thinks some form of violence against some group of people is justified, that's sick.



Moreover, I think you should start punching her, find a 9mm, start shooting her, get out of the house, shoot a missle at the ambulence coming to help her, run throught the streets mowing down the cops until you find a whore and die of aids after killing her to get your money back.

 

[AntoneM]

Her: It's not about whether you will or won't. Why do you give these people money to allow you to do these things, even in a virtual setting?
Me: Well, it's a fun game.
Her: Killing innocents is fun? Murdering hookers is fun?

The real world affords you the opportunity to do those same things, it is, in fact, a matter of if you will or if you won't. People spend billions each year on things that get there adrenaline pumping, from movies to rollercoasters. It just so happens that many people get a rush out of commiting a crime and getting away with it. When I was 12-14 it was the ultimate rush to get away with commiting a crime of course that was shoplifting and smoking cigarettes.

Ask her if she would have any problems with you playing Battlefield 1942. If she says no then remind her that a real war is mostly fought by innocent people, it's the people in power that set the war into motion and they are the ones to blame, the leaders are the guilty ones not the soldiers, yet she has no problem with you blowing the hell out of some Nazi soldiers in Battlefield 1942?

It's the rush, be it murdering innocent Nazis or innocent hookers, that makes those games and the large majority of all games enjoyable, unfortunatly violence or acts that envoke the same resonses are the easiest ways to get this rush, that's what makes the game fun.

I'm sure that's one big incoherent jumble but I think there are some nuggets of wisdom.

 

[kumanoki]

I think the whole argument of "it's bad to kill innocent people" is void, how can anyone prove that the people they kill are "innocent"?

I would disagree, and so would just about every other sane person. Fortunately, it's not up to the person doing the killing whether the person they killed was 'innocent' or not. It's the act of killing someone not opposed to your mission.

You just kill whoever the game tells you to kill, no real questions asked. If you don't, you can't progress, so you kill people to continue playing, that's all.

Agreed, you must kill in order to progress, and some of the kills are questionable (i.e. the cop under CIA protection, the reporter and informant on the pier) but the majority of the missions involve a party or parties diametrically opposed to your success. You cannot complete the game without defeating said parties. There are other people in the game (pedestrians, counter jockeys) posing absolutely no opposition to your progress, and my wife argues that killing those individuals is gratuitous, and therefore immoral.

Killing people is a game, that's already disturbing enough, who the hell cares if they're 'innocent'?

You need to get out more. Walk around in the daylight. Perhaps socialize with people.

Well all the goombas ever did in Mario Bros. is walk around and that didn't keep me from squishing the living shit out of them.

Again, Goombas represent a force diametrically opposed to your successful completion of the game. Enemy combatants, as it were.

Violence is still violence, in any videogame and the fact that someone thinks some form of violence against some group of people is justified, that's sick.

Um. So all forms of violence against all groups of people is okay? That is your closing argument? Uh. Hm.

The real world affords you the opportunity..../ /.....easiest ways to get this rush, that's what makes the game fun.

I think that's one of the most coherent arguments I could make with her.

 

[Grubdog]

Again, Goombas represent a force diametrically opposed to your successful completion of the game. Enemy combatants, as it were.

So, if those Goombas were human babies, and blood came out of them when you jumped on them, would your wife dislike the game, even though the gameplay remains unchanged?

 

[kumanoki]

So, if those Goombas were human babies, and blood came out of them when you jumped on them, would your wife dislike the game, even though the gameplay remains unchanged?

I don't think so. She's cool with a good 'dead baby' joke. What, haven't you seen the Korean Super Dead Baby Bros. port before? I don't think she'd have a problem with it if the Genome Soldiers in MGS were all women and small children. As said before, in order to proceed.....

Seriously, though, I think the distinction lies in the fact that GTA:SA is based closely on reality. Besides, 16-bit dead babies don't look real, anyway.

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

My wife thinks the game is a little over the top, but hell, she plays too

 

[cvxfreak]

Significant other > GTASA

 

[kumanoki]

Significant other > GTASA

Agreed.

It's difficult to present both sides of the argument while defending my wife's intelligence, beliefs, etc. It's not a point of contention in our marriage or anything, just one of many disagreements. A fun one, in fact.

I fear for the guy who wants a woman who thinks just like him.

 

[davis]

I think the point about just killing the innocents as being wrong or immoral is a good one, the sad fact is you can progress easier by doing it that way, I am trying to play without shoting until shot at first and from the point of view of CJ a guy who's Mom was murdered and needs to get back in his old network to survive and find some answers. I am very early in the game though, the only mission that kind of bothered me so far is when stealing the crates you had to kill some National Guard, still they do fire on you so you still are really just out to survive.

I do think some of those real life war games can be argued they are just as bad or even worse since those were real people and many of them don't have that same cartoony look GTA still has on purpose I think. I mean you are blowing off the heads of the supposedly bad Japanese or nazi guys in those games and sad fact is that really happened, but thats just my view why I never liked those games I am sure ppl that love them could argue why they are fine. Still this is an interesting topic to me since at times a wonder if the game goes to far. I do wish they gave you more of option to be good in all missions but then I guess that would change the game and it wouldn't be as popular, I just want to mostly see what happens with the Samuel L jackson cop character and a few other charcaters in the story.

 

[teepo]

my mom shakes her head at the game but she knows its all in good fun.

 

[calder]

My wife used to complain every time I wacked someone "innocent" in the game. I just ignore her, and she doesn't really care that much (well enough to make an actual argument about it, she got all huffy one time but a terse "I honestly don't give a fuck what you think about it" from me pretty much ended any attempts at indignant social commentary from her) but she does say it's 'sick' when I run down pedestrians or kill bystanders for no reason. She doesn't like the hookers either, either for recreation or killing.

I have found that she doesn't mention it nearly as much anymore. When I killed everyone in the UFO themed diner with a pool cue because i lost $1000 and then beat a cop to the ground escaping yesterday she just laughed. +1 desensitisation! She also laughed when that annoying ghetto rat Denise dissed CJ on a date and I picked up a hooker and drove back to Denise's front yard.

Significant other > GTASA

Hmm, in general yes, but the Toreno missions and the casino heist > my wife anyway.


*prays she no longer reads the forum*

 

[Date of Lies]

I would disagree, and so would just about every other sane person. Fortunately, it's not up to the person doing the killing whether the person they killed was 'innocent' or not. It's the act of killing someone not opposed to your mission.


Agreed, you must kill in order to progress, and some of the kills are questionable (i.e. the cop under CIA protection, the reporter and informant on the pier) but the majority of the missions involve a party or parties diametrically opposed to your success. You cannot complete the game without defeating said parties. There are other people in the game (pedestrians, counter jockeys) posing absolutely no opposition to your progress, and my wife argues that killing those individuals is gratuitous, and therefore immoral.


You need to get out more. Walk around in the daylight. Perhaps socialize with people.


Again, Goombas represent a force diametrically opposed to your successful completion of the game. Enemy combatants, as it were.


Um. So all forms of violence against all groups of people is okay? That is your closing argument? Uh. Hm.



I think that's one of the most coherent arguments I could make with her.

Wow settle down there junior, and good job missing the whole point. But you get an E for effort for the little "you should get out more" jab, where have I heard that one before?

Um. So all forms of violence against all groups of people is okay? That is your closing argument? Uh. Hm.

Actually I meant the exact opposite, sorry to bust on your very well built counter argument.
Violence is still violence, no matter the group of people, the fact that the game tells you to kill doesn't make it morally justified to do so (inside the game), so the 'innocent people' argument is void. The people the game tells you to kill are just as innocent as the 'innocent' people in the game.

"You need to get out more. Walk around in the daylight. Perhaps socialize with people." :lol

 

[Sein]

as far as I can recall there are no instances where killing an "innocent" is part of the mission.

Your recollection is faulty indeed. That, or you have a curious definition of "innocent."

Spoiler

A number of missions involve infiltrating military installations. Many of these missions can't be completed without killing sentries. Are you suggesting that preventing CJ from entering made them not innocent?

What about Madd Dogg's manager? Does Madd Dogg's success make him not innocent?

Was it fair for CJ to bury the construction foreman in concrete simply because his subordinates catcalled Kendl?

And I'd love to hear your theory of how Berkley's couriers were not innocent.

 

[xexex]

tell "her" that's it's just a videogame. don't make a big deal out of it. it's not a big deal.



p.s. marriage must be a fucking pain. glad i'm never getting married.


videogames > married life :lol

 

[Date of Lies]

tell "her" that's it's just a videogame. don't make a big deal out of it. it's not a big deal.

That's the advice I'd give you too.

You could probably just as easily knock on something she likes, which you should, and bring it up everytime she says something about your games. Something like "As if your soap operas are so much better" and ignore whatever she says after that.

Do you really say "I'm not getting any tonight, am I?" to your wife?