Slashdot Mirror
The Moral Pathology of Vice City
SiliconRedox writes "An interesting article at the NYTimes (reg req) outlining the rise of rockstar games and the imminent release of Vice City. What the article mentions but never brings together is the ability of the player to win the game through peaceful(ie: not killing people) or criminal means. The game, while being hailed as morally reprehensible, is in fact only acting out the pathology of the player." Everything worth knowing in life can be learned from GTA. For example, upside down cars explode, and flying cars can jump the bridge between the first and second city without finishing the quests. Just like in real life. I still haven't picked up Vice City, but I'm stoked. And I will most definitely not win through peaceful means.
cmon...most of the missions in gta are to kill someone. just like technically, gangsters can be "peacefull", they very rarely are. what is wrong with a little addictive destroying of vehicles?
BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
Ok, so the game CAN be won peacefully. he question is, is it advertised that way? Do they say "No one way to win - the gameplay fits your style!" or do they say "Death! Explosions! Prostitution! (and peace, if you want it)"
It's only acting on people's psyche's if they go into it with no preconceptions. Sounds to me like people've got some preconceptions already.
Triv
Most people are only involved with wreaking havoc in peaceful games like SimCity; Haven't we all unleashed all kinds of disasters on a city?
People play games to escape from reality, finishing GTA peacefully kinda defeats its purpose.
Again this begs the question of causality from video game violence to real life violence. Numerous studies show a correlation but not causality. This is the modern version of D&D causes kids to become interested in the occult and worship Satan that we saw in the '80s.
My copy is pre-ordered through Amazon. Can't wait...
People like Lieberman still haven't grasped this simple concept.
If you don't like a game, DON'T PLAY IT!!!!
Meldroc, Waster of Electrons
This is bullshit. I get sick of hearing about how horrible and abhorrent and violent games are.
Who cares? Playing the latest, greatest, most violent game does not make you any more or less likely to go out and commit some violent act. Games do not control people; people control people.
Just because the two nutcases who shot up Columbine happened to be avid Doom players (or whatever), now we all have to hear this bullshit about how "violent games cause people to go out and act violently".
Give it a freaking rest. I've played quite a few games -- Descent 1-3, Quake 1-3, Tomb Raider 1 - 5, Eternal Darkness, etc. Despite that, I haven't been any more inclined to kill people. Gee, go figure.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
I've been saying this for quite some time now, but once more won't hurt. The following is my take on the, "video games cause children to go on killing sprees" mentality.
If a child (or anyone for that matter) plays a video game, then goes on a murderous rampage, there has to be something wrong with him other than the fact that he plays games, ie he already has some serious issues. Just like some people are predisposed to alcoholism, some people are predisposed to violence. When a kid starts shooting people, we shouldn't be blaming video games or anyone related to them, we should be questioning the parents, who are letting their child play games which they should realise could affect the kid in negative ways. Just like if you know your son or daughter is sensitive you don't let them watch horror movies, if you know (or even are mildly suspicious) that your child has violent tendencies, you shouldn't let them play video games that are violent.
Like drinking, some people can play tons of games their entire lives without any adverse consequences, while for others all it takes is one round to set them off.
My other sig is funny!
So you were one of the two people that survived being sniped?
We all lived through it. Seriously, the way things are publicized, presented, and talked about in our culture, we all live through things like this. Sure, your physical distance may have been closer, but that doesn't make it any more real for you than someone else...unless you were at the gas station when some poor fellow's chest exploded, then I would agree with your statement. However, I doubt that.
Besides, the US military trained this man, not some video game.
- Sighuh?
Has anyone seriously solved GTA3 without killing anyone? Even if it's possible, it must be superhumanly hard. The game pushes and prods you in to killing every step of the way. One mission (spoiler warning) off the top of my head is to snipe eight people on a ship before they can kill your friend. Maybe there's a series of missions you can do without killing anyone, but even if there is.. if you buy GTA3 and never hurt anyone you really aren't getting your money's worth. There also is no real reason in GTA3 not to kill; the worst that can happen is you lose your stuff.
Deus Ex, on the other hand, always gives you the opportunity to go the peaceful route. If you kill, things can get harder, and people you care about might die. The storyline is so engrossing and the characters so deep (as opposed to GTA3) that I found myself taking time to go the non-killing route in many cases. The game rewards this behavior in a realistic way. Everything doesn't turn out perfectly if you don't kill, and it is sometimes hard not to, but it really makes you think twice.
The summary given in the submission is misleading. There is absolutely no way you can "win" the game without raising a gun. To complete the narrative (GTA does have a story, you know!), I have no doubt that there will be some murder here and there. If GTA3 was any indication, more often than not you will be killing someone.
In order to get 100% (which is separate from the main narrative) you must rob stores, complete "rampages" (killing as many as possible in a given time), and even collect hidden packages which I think are statues this time around.
Now, if you want to run around delivering Pizza, only killing criminals with police vehicles, drive people around in taxis, or sell ice cream, you are very welcome to do so. In fact, Vice City even lets you buy businesses to profit from and houses for you to live in.
While GTA: Vice City allows you to do basically anything, if you really wish to play the game you're going to kill a lot of people and you'll be a gangster.
My copy comes Tuesday.
It's going to be an interesting future.
That blowing up cars, and killing people by various methods is a lot better done in a game, then oh.. I don't know, say in real life?
I'd rather see people get their frustrations out on a computer game than to literally run someone down. Of course, there's not even a correlation between the two, which really brings to question why the HELL people blame video games for real life violence.
Using games as a reflection of real-life violence is getting old. We have all watched this week the various screwed up problems around the world, from the Chechen music-hall siege, israeli-palestinian killings, etc etc. For some reason people are convinced video games are a source of violence, but interestingly enough I doubt the people involved in the above mentioned conflicts even give a shit about video games, let alone play them.
1. People are often motivated to kill others for strong emotional reasons.
2. Video games are like play-acting (cowboys & indians, cops & robbers): they resemble their real-life counterparts, but only a mentally deranged person would confuse the two. Little kids recognize the difference.
3. People have inherit violent tendancies, the right series of circumstances will bring this out no matter what. This is different for each person.
4. Proper manipulation of those tendancies results in violence. In the case of Columbine, the constant being picked upon was the catalyst.
5. Violence is often commited to achieve a goal. Video games do not give you a goal that transfers to real life; their goals are usually narrow and simple. Ie, kill all the monsters, fight the boss badguy, etc. The person would have to provide their own seperate goal to be able to kill because of a video game since the game's goals do not transfer very well to RL.
6. Trying to summarize a person's actions through one attribute/action is piss poor, and is akin to saying that people are stupid robots that are completely predictable. History shows that humans are about as predictable as electrons.
7. If a person is determined to kill because of a video game, it is irrelevant that the catalyst was a video game as that person has already shown mental instability and thus is not valid as a reference. The idea being here someone determined to be stupid will be stupid no matter what.
"What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
If you simulate something you want it to be accurate. Being a crime sim it isn't going to be about loving your neighbour etc...
Actually, I was trying to be funny (ie/ there are reviews for a game that nobody outside of the company has even played yet). The reviews are from consumers, not futureshop.
Neither you nor the moderator got the joke (incidently, how can I be 'overrated' when nobody rated me yet?). Obviously, I'm not as funny as I think I am.
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
While playing GTA3, I found myself laughing more than anything else. The violence and "offensiveness" is so over-the-top it really is funny. I get a kick out of telling my friends that I love the game, and what the game is about, because they invariably give me these odd looks like I am insane. But that's a big part of the fun of the game -- immersing myself in a world which I will never otherwise be a part of. And because it is so over-the-top, it makes the immersion more satisfying in some way.
I am a math professor, and I have occasionally made up homework problems related to GTA3 in my classes. And I've organized a couple of video game parties for students in my dept to get together and play (mostly to see if anyone can beat me at Mario Kart 64, which no one can, but we also sometimes laugh at GTA3).
I beat GTA3 long ago, but I occasionally fire it up and drive the tank around, causing tons of mayhem in a virtually indestructible vehicle. I've been thinking of replaying it from the start. And there are other things I have yet to do, like get one of the cool FBI cars (I almost got one once, but by the time the FBI is after you, it's hard to walk around on the street without getting gunned down by all the law enforcement types).
I will be running out to get GTA:VC.
It's not open-ended like GTA, but remember Final Fantasy VII? It was actually pointed out by my roommate's Muslim ex-roommate (after the 9/11 attacks) that Cloud and gang were pretty much terrorists. It's interesting though how when the story is presented in a certain way, you feel like you're the good guys.
This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
Innocent computer people.
I remember hearing a while ago about some nutbag who made a white supremecist game. The idea was to run around kill as many minorities as you can, in the most horrible way you can. It was advertised along the lines of "run through the hood and hit niggers with bat, shoot all the spics you can" and things like that. Now, I think it would be a fair statement to say that most people (even on /.) would be against this game. So the big question is, what is the real difference between a game that encourages you to kill "spics" and a game that encourages you to kill other people? Is it really that much worse to be a racist than to beat up a prostitute and blow up a police car?
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
That goes for the real world too. I guarantee you that the hundreds of people who have done suicide bombings are firmly convinced they are doing a good thing for all the right reasons. There are few things more amazing than the human ability to justify any action in one's own mind no matter how reprehensible.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I just wanna know why "games" like football, soccer, rugby, and hockey act out their violence (granted, without killing anybody (usually)) and are hailed as something "good for the kids" by being sponsored in schools, yet video games, which haven't hurt anybody, are called evil because people get killed on the screen. ...oops, just like movies! Movies don't get nearly as much flack as video games, even though they're watched by a much broader audience.
Gah!
we are building a religion
a limited edition
we are now accepting callers
for these pendant key chains
...as:
There is a key distinction between reality and make believe.
In reality, I'm not a knight in shining armour, nor am I the evil gun-toting gangster. But both make for interesting excercises of the mind. Sort of like walking a mile in someone else's shoes, even if that someone never could be in the world as we know it.
Lately, with the way these joyless anti-everything doomsayers keep attacking anything that even vaguely titilates or allows us a peaceful harmless (for most mentally together people...) exploration of our darker natures, one begins to feel that imagination and invention are themselves under attack.
Good Lord save us from those that think they know better than we do about what is good for us....
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
Oh dear... My childhood heroes were terrorists
I hate Grammar Nazi's
I'm continually puzzled why Slashdot is a constant source of NYT readership.
Especially when the editors have stated that they have a policy of not linking to sites that require registration.
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
What the article mentions but never brings together is the ability of the player to win the game through peaceful(ie: not killing people) or criminal means.
It doesn't "bring together" that point because it's barely relevant. It's an interesting aside at most, which is how the article treats it.
It instead "brings together" the much more germaine point that there is a healthy market for games aimed at adults. It leaves the reader to draw his own conclusions about whether adults have a right to expect such games to be created and marketed, but rather pointedly implies that we do. It puts anyone who thinks this game should be taken off the market in the position of also thinking that only G-rated movies should be released and that all books published should be appropriate for children old enough to read. Certainly, there are people who feel this way, but the article doesn't let them disguise themselves. IMO, a good piece of writing.
Michael
"No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality;..."
I put GTA3, Vice City, Eminem, Marilyn Manson, etc. in the same catergory: scapegoats people use when something goes wrong with society. Their reasoning is if they point the finger at someone else quickly enough, no one will point the finger at them. 2 kids shot up Columbine? If their parents had paid a tiny bit of attention to them they might have noticed something early enough to do something about it and it never would have happened. But that doesn't matter, all that matters is they played violent video games and listened to loud music. The media can't be to blame for glorifying violence either (live coverage of the latest war, proudly sponsored by Coca-Cola, anyone?), because the media are the ones bringing us our news, our atrocities, and our thoughts. I see this complaining about Vice City as "softening the beachhead", so when whatever bad happens 6 months from now they can say "These kids played games like Vice City, that's what made them do these horrible things. We told everyone when these games came out that they would cause things like this, now look what's happened!"
live(free) || die;
What's so surprising is how shortsighted and hypocritical these people can be, because they are reacting the same exact way many politicians did to rock music in the 50's and 60's. While I don't usually agree with Mr. Gore's politics, we do share the same musical tastes, the Grateful Dead. The logic that Mr. Gore uses against video games is the same logic that was used against various types of music in the 50's and 60's. The MUSIC was blamed when the kids grew their hair, the MUSIC was to blame when kids took drugs. Now its video games and rap music that are causing violence. So if Gore or any Baby Boomer politician wants to regulate or ban video games, they should really start with a ban on the Beatles.
Rather like a rogue group of individuals that would destroy a large spherical spacestation (terminating thousands of 'innocent' lives) because the Empire that built it was hell-bent on assimilating all cultures under its anti-spiritual, homogenous rule?
Rather like the french resistance during World War II?
Let me elaborate on what i suspect to be Gropo's point: In the last year or so, the word "terrorist" seems to have lost almost all meaning. Let's please try to remember: The terms "terrorist", "saboteur", and "guerilla" all mean three different things. There's some overlap between the three groups, but the words themselves mean different things.
The word "terrorist" means that civilian targets and infrastructure are targeted specifically to manipulate the emotions of a larger civilian population. This is why we can make blanket statements like "all terrorists are bad"-- it doesn't matter what their goals are, becuase by definition they are using the unacceptable means of reaching those goals of targetting civilians to manufacture widespread fear.
The french resistence, the rebel alliance, and Barrett's group from FF7 don't fall under this definition. They attempted to sabotage military infrastructure in order to weaken a war machine while minimizing civilian damage. There's something of a difference. On the other hand, Al Qaeda doesn't see themselves as a future islamic empire fighting the U.S. government; they see themselves as fighting a war between Islamic and American culture. From their viewpoint, the people in the WTC towers weren't collateral damage, they were targets.
In fact, the interesting bit about Final Fantasy 7 is that while Barrett's group was decidedly "freedom fighters" or whatever, the media in the game, which was controlled by the totaltarian corporate state they lived under, constantly blackens your name with the populace by labelling you as a tarrorist group. There was one bit where the evil empire thingy destroys a big section of city and kills a huge number of poor people; you try to stop them, and fail; and after escaping the rubble, you see a news report on a television claiming that section of city was destroyed maliciously by the infamous terrorist group: Barrett's group. The one you are playing as. And of course everyone believes it; they saw it on television.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Dresden.... Tokyo...
The fact of the matter is that the United States has a very long history of doing terrible things like this. There would be no United States as we know if it weren't for a little genocide and slavery.
We also have a long history of supporting others in doing terrible things for our short term benefit. Invariably all these things come back to bite us in the end, but when you've got politicians only concerned with getting through the next four years of their career, what do you expect.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I think both Gore and Lieberman understand that concept, but the problem are their main supporters haven't grasped that. Many moms out there are going to think that this game is going to make Little Johnny into a psychotic prostitute killing serial rapist. And if that ever happens they're going to blame those 'evil' video games rather than their poor parenting. So Censor! Censor! Censor!
Politically correctness is about popularity, not ethics. Nowadays the popular opinion is that hispanics and blacks are cool but arabs are target practice. It's wrong but it's popular.
However, the links you provide here are far from a convincing indictment of "terrorism" as defined in the root of this thread. I'll remind you again: It was the targeting of civilian targets with the intention of demoralizing the population. Now, that doesn't mean that any attack which frightens or even harms civilians is a terrorist attack; it means that the primary purpose is directed against the civilian populace and not toward reducing the enemy's capability to wage and win war, which are considered legitimate military objectives.
So the Japanese attacked a significant manufacturing city which also formed a major tranportation junction with railway, waterport and land route access, the "secondary capital of China at the time"? Dude, what the hell do you want before a target is considered a bona fide military objective?
Now if you want to argue that the Japanese attack was unjustified aggression, I'm with you 100%, it absolutely was. If you want to say the Japanese waged war in a ruthless and even brutal way, again I won't argue with that; they did.
But were the bombings at either Pearl Harbor or Congqing City terrorism? No, they were not; terrorism is a different monster, and that's the point that the parent poster and I were making. To be a terrorist act, it is not sufficient that the act be violent, nor that civilians are hurt in it; terrorism is the use of violence to terrify and demoralize the civilian populace as a primary objective, irrespective of actual military advantage.
It's only semantics; you know, the science of precise communication, so that we all can understand each other. Admittedly, speaking precisely is a sometime thing on Slashdot! ;-)