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
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.
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.
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.
"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
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
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.
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"
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'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.