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.
And of course, in real life I get points every time I run someone over!
Don't give me none of this "nature theme" business.
You mean even the missions where you have to kill someone, can be completed without violence?
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
That is you increase the mass the mass of a taxi to 40000 kg, you won't lose any speed but can send cars you crash into flying into space.
I also learned that if the center of gravity of a police car is 5 feet above the roof of the car, the slightest disturbance can send it spinning end to end and bouncing like a superball. Watch out if you've in it when you do this!
Cogito ergo sum in Slashdot.
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.
In true /. form I haven't read the article. Still I somehow doubt they are hailing the game as morally reprehensible.
Q:How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division? A:None. Obviously market forces will take care of it.
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...
Still!?! YOU STILL DON'T HAVE IT?! Jeez it's been out since next Tuesday and you're just sitting around talking about getting it instead of doing something about it. What a maroon!
Meanwhile, my GTA:VC complaints and I don't have it either!
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
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!
I saw a short blip on CNN Headline News this morning about GTA: Vice City. At first I expected it to be another bashing of violent video games and have it somehow tie into the current sniper issue, but much to my surprise it didn't. It involved the news anchor telling a game magazine writer how much he liked GTA3 and wanted to know if GTA: Vice City would live up to it's predecessor's success. They also made the point that this was a mature game intended for adults and thus excessive violence wasn't really an issue. Wow.
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.
... what would that say about me?
Here's a better question - if the people that play these games lack morals, then why do they pay for it and why can RockStar games stay in business? Obviously, this game is a hit because moral people like to act immorally in a fantasy environment.
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
How on earth can you win it peacefully though? How many of the missions are to kill somebody? I think we lose credibility and the argument when such claims are made. There is no way to win that game without taking the life of some of the characters in it. Can you win it by taking fewer lives? Sure but that's far cry from peaceful.
I'm not particularly in favor of banning games or things like that. I don't really mind the labels on them, parents should know what they are getting their children and then ultimately I think a good parent would play along or at least observe their kids gaming habbits. You're a parent and don't lke GTA3, then don't let your kids play it. There isn't a credible way that you can claim that the game can be played peacefully though; unless you're talking about just driving around and exploring which isn't really playing. By saying such things you make the statements of the opposition more credible.
Violent game? Certainly, you're lying if you think it can be played peacefully. Morally objectionable? Probably in the same league as watching CSI or paying to see Red Dragon, in other words, not terribly extreme. Morally objectionable to let young teenagers play without supervision? Possibly, that's really for parents to decide though.
Now that you know where I'm comming from, here is my take on things. This is the second game mentioned on /. recently, so I'll give you my oppinion on both, and why they differ.
GTA
I have played GTA3 and it was fun, and I plan to play vice city. Does it show killing? Yes. Does it show hookers? Yes. Does it show law breaking? Yes. Do they do it all just to get people mad? NO. All of these things are in the game because they belong there. The guy you play lives in this seedy world, and these are the kind of things that go on. It's sorta like real life. Do people complain that there are people dying in war games? No. Can you make a good wargame where you're a soldier without killing? Probably not, at least not one that's realistic. In the same way, you can't make a game about a thug/gangster/whatever without the kind of missions in Vice City. In shot: these things are there for mood and story. They are not just thrown in. Objecting to the content in this game is like objecting to the death and nazi stuff in Schindler's List. It's an essential part of the story/game/movie/whatever.
BMX: XXX
This game, IMNTBHO never should have been made. While most everyting "objectionable" in GTA is there for a reason, all the disgusting raunchy perverted sub-juvinile stuff in the game is just there to get publicity and the attention of horny people. There is no reason for nudity and pimps in a game about BMX biking. Last time I checked, there were very few pimps who are BMX stars. Dave Mira BMX doesn't need that stuff. This game is simply grossity for grossocity's sake. It is perfectly reasonable to object to this game for the kind of content in it, because that content has no bearing on the gameplay.
In short, GTA:VC is perfectly fine; the people who made BMX XXX need to be dragged out into the street, and run over repeatidly by hookers and pimps on bicycles. Under stand I tend to use hyperboly, and that I haven't played either game. I intend to play GTA:VC, but I'll be dead before I play BMX XXX.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
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.
"Now you know"
...Also, I didn't know Buggalo could fly.
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
Of course, this is mostly because Deus Ex (my fav game of all time) is ment to be a stealth type game against impossible odds so to speak. It has much more of a role playing element and you are rewarded at the end for stelth and colletion of items.
Heck, (spoiler) toward the end when you are in level4 lab under the UNATCO base and all those gaurds are comming, I just unleashed those big genetic mutations and hit up the stairs.. watching the slaughter of course. That has to be THE MOST satisfying moment of the entire game. It's such a thrill to not do any work in that game (no joke!)
I just saw Bowling on friday, and this movie tries to get to the issue, of why there is so much gun violence in the us. It does happen to graze on the video game aspect, however it bypasses that as the reason, and later says, that the two columbine boys went bowling on the morning of the killings, so, is bowling responsible?
The movie touches on that most first world countries have yearly gun murder rates below 200, whereas, the us has over 11,000.
From what i gathered from the movie, they come to the conclusion that gun violence comes mainly from the extreme paranoia generated by every form of media. They compared the nightly news from canada versus the news in the US. The top story in the canadian news was about speed bumps, and the top stories in the US were all about death, and killing. Plus, to really bring their point home, they point out that canada has 10million homes, with over 7million guns in the country, so it's not the prevalance of guns that cause violence.
However, every person who wants some ammunition (pun intended) to fight the 'videogames kill' mantra of unenlightened politicians, and parents, go see this movie. It will definitely give you very good arguments to defend our position.
The logic behind most people's objections to games like GTA are that by playing out these actions in the game we are somehow re-tuning our own personal ethics to suggest that these things are okay to do for real. We kill a thousand virtual hookers and then at some point killing a real hooker doesn't seem that out of line. There are people who can make this kind of logical leap, and they are hopefully diagnosed for their psychosis and treated before it becomes an issue.
:)
People like Lieberman are afraid that if we flirt with our internal dark side, we're going to end up turning into devil worshipping crack head rapists. In reality, the exact opposite is likely to be more true. That by flirting with our dark sides, we can let off a little steam and not have our dark sides come boiling out to do harm to others. Their afraid that if we admit to ourselves that we have a darkside, we are going to be seduced into unleashing it, when really, recognizing its existence is the best way to insure that it won't come out.
Personally I love violent video games and GTA: Vice City is on my short list of games to get in the near future. In addition to playing games like that, I love going to play paintball, and play violent paper role playing games. Now, am I violent? No. I wouldn't want to touch a real gun, let alone fire one, or use one to harm or kill another person.
So there's nothing wrong with it. The point that should be made in the intro to this story isn't that you can win the game peacefully, but rather that there's no reason you should feel compelled to do so, unless you just like the challenge of it. I've played violent games where I intentionally tried to be ethical in the game to make it more interesting.
Actually, I'd love to see somebody do a terrorist video game, honestly. I know there's things like counterstrike, but I mean something where you'd do things like plot out bomb attacks, etc. That could be a lot of fun, but I somehow don't think any major game publisher is going to be backing that sort of game anytime soon
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
...despite my copy of Deus Ex predating 9/11, it does not feature the twin towers in the New York skyline. Is that spooky or what? Did the developers ever comment on why they made this choice?
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 too hard if you use a combination of tear gas and the stun gun. Of course, that's not exactly non-violent.
Innocent computer people.
I say the old civilization games coz i hear from every where the new one sucks.
Anyways there you could win trough peacefull means (launching a space ship), or by taking over the whole world.
I almost never won by launching spaceships, and even if i did i made sure i had the world firmly under my foot by the time my spaceship arrived.
I think video game critics should at last realize that one of the purposes of the video game is to feed a person's anti-social and violent urges in a safe way.
The same video game critics should instead examine those that do not wish to vent their sadistic urges on videogames.
In the past 10 years i have watched ordinary law abiding people in the US and abroad get warm and fuzzy feeling watching afghanis, iraqis or serbs being bombed into oblivion. I have seen my friends get very satisfied and amuzed when they saw thousands of iraqi soldiers burnt to a crisp as they were trying to run for their lives.
And the same people always make sure to vote for a president that will guarantee those images will keep coming to their tv screen.
We also have a quite popular tv show detailing the sick and inhuman torture that happens in our prisons. That such stuff happens is common knowledge and the source of millions of jokes told by fratboys and bad comedians.
Yet if a politician ever promises to create humane conditions in our prison system, he is guaranteed to lose. The voters want that stuff to happen in their jails.
Well those couple of examples should show that the people complaining about violence on video games are hypocritical. They blast the realistic but fake violence in video games, but are too scared to face the sadism and lust for very real violence present in the ordinary non video game playing citizen.
Well I would much prefer it if every one got their kicks from putting the world under their iron fist in civilization, instead of watching their country carpet bomb some poor third world peasants on tv.
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
Kids have played violently since the begining but no one is trying to ban "cowboys and indians".
Bzzzt!
With every new school shooting, the knee-jerk overreactions get more ridiculous.
How much longer before they stop teaching kids history about things like World War II because (gasp!) people DIED, and GUNS were used! Oh, the horror! Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!?!?!?
If anything, we need MORE violence in schools. Let kids settle differences with a nice, healthy fistfight after school! Let them play dodgeball and cowboys and indians! When I was growing up, the weak, stupid kids died doing stupid things. Today, Darwinism has been taken out of the playground. These kids who grew up with 6" of soft rubber padding under the swings and monkeybars are living longer when they shouldn't have, and snapping violently later in life and taking other people with them when they do it.
~Philly
I guess i forgot to put this in, canada has a population of 31 million, and their gun murder rate for the entire country is under 200. Now, the US has a population of about 288million which is about 9 times that of canada. so normalizing the data would get:
canada: 1850
US: 11,000
as you can see, the US has over 5 times the rate of canada
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
Anyone see the TV ads for Conflict: Desert Storm? One of the clips they show has Saddam Hussein squarely in a sniper's sights. Haven't heard any outcry about this game, but I guess in this case killing people (or a certain person in particular) is just fine to teach our kids.
Just thought that was interesting
Play the 4X game "Dominions", from Illwinter. Pick Abysia. Blood magic, human sacrifice, and demon summons will be a natural fit for your heat-lovin' volcano-dwelling troops. Oh, and since your objective is to make the entire world worship you, it also ties into megalomania... ;)
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
...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."
You mustn't have bought the correct expansions! Module S666: The Road To Ruin.... Instead of paying $10, you had to sign a contract for your soul and those of your gaming group. (That's okay, sometimes a DM has to make sacrifices.... errr.... well, maybe in this context that takes on another meaning). ;)
(I also played far too many hours of RPGs in the 80s and probably hacked down more kobolds and orcs than could reasonably be installed in any biosphere)
PS - for the humour impaired, the foregoing was a joke!
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
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...
No, innocent computer game object instances. They are not people (unless the program displays true sentience and self-awareness of which I am highly doubting).
If you can't tell the difference between some crackpot (or terrorist or whatever) with a rifle killing innocent people and some geek blowing up little computer game object instances that have about as much "peopleness" as my car keys, then you are probably one of the people that should not buy these games in the first place - your grip on reality is far too tenuous!
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
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;
i just imagine the headlines when it finally makes into stores around here.. butchering people in 3d. and no peaceful means. http://www.gopostal.com/
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
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.
No one sane thinks that playing a video game (of any type) is immoral. No one sane would think ANYTHING someone does which does no harm to anyone else is somehow morally wrong. Notice I said, no one sane.
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
nOOOOO! If we do that, men will behave like MEN instead of the sensitive crybabies that no woman wants! This will totally derail our plans! Men must supress their biological urges while women's urges are encouraged. Even the vagina monologues ad says that a vagina is the "essence of womanhood". You gals wanna see the essence of my manhood? I didn't think so. Put the mudflaps away and be civilised please.
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!
I've recently had a reason to look up the murder rates of the US and Australia. Last monday there was a shooting at where I work. 2 people were killed, and it reached the international news. This is a big deal here, and there are local calls to ban ALL handguns because of this.
Dude, people shoudln't have to deal with what you Monash guys have just gone thru.
All of us in tassie send our best. Hopefully all goes back to normal for you guys soon.
As we know, it can take a while....
Stay cool...
Burma?
And I don't know what CmdrTaco is talking about. I'll try not to use spoilers here, but you CAN NOT BEAT GTA3 without doing a certain mission that involves killing a member of one gang you were allied with using another gang's car in order to provoke a war between the two. That's neither peaceful nor ethical.
:)
It does, however, rock.
grep -ri 'should work'
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.
Could you provide us with a link? I find that strange, just because they link to the New York Times a ton.
Could you provide us with a link?
Sure can.
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
funnily enough i can't think of any japanese cases of terrorbombing
I guess Pearl Harbour was just a pretty firework show then?
--
Reverse outsourcing: it's the future
funnily enough i can't think of any japanese cases of terrorbombing
I guess Pearl Harbour was just a pretty firework show then?
Pearl Harbour was a military base, remember?
Check out this Dork Tower cartoon.
Says it all really. Had they discovered any shoot-em-up computer game at the sniper's home, especially one featuring a sniper rifle, there would have been a massive call to ban games all over America.
Not ban guns, mind you, as that would be UnAmerican...
"Information wants to be paid"
OK - try any of the links here.
--
Reverse outsourcing: it's the future
It sounds like that Oog is a very insightful guy...
You can avoid a game like this, but you can't ignore it, nor can you keep your kids from playing it at the neighbor's house. The millions that Rockstar is going to spend on marketing will ensure that EVERY kid in America will be talking about it.
So, what's a parent's recourse when they think that their kids are being unethically targeted with an adult game? Write a letter to Rockstar? Yeah, so it can get passed around the studio for laughs; Rockstar already knows that the "under 18" market is a big chunk of their sales. Write a letter to Sony? Hey, Sony's main concern is the financials, not the ethics, of game marketing; and if a game only sells to 10% of PS2 owners, it's a hit and the majority is overruled. So, write a letter to your congressperson and get govenrment involved? That would appear to be the only recourse.
Is that so shocking a course of action, considering the above?
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! ;-)
the poster is an idiot. if you summon that many tanks, and save it, your game crashes. My friend and I went through 3 memory cards, and 2 CD's trying to figure out what in gods name was making the game crash on load, and after extensive (like, 3-4 weekends of solid playing) we finally figured out that there is a chance that if you summon a bunch of tanks, and save it, it crashes. Not always, but about 50% of the time...
This is my sig. Its pathetic.
Dune (the board game version) had an interesting twist- everyone could win if everyone joined the same alliance during a nexus. Of course no one ever did, which just plays into what the thrust of this thread is about....
________________________________________ History Must Not Fall Into The Wrong Hands ___________________________________