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.

Comments

pathology??

[dollargonzo]

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?

Re:pathology??

[403Forbidden]

I agree that saying how the game is really open-ended and a "peaceful" game is very wrong to use as an example to combat these media sensations.

Going through the game and not killing anyone is more of something to do when you have beat it and want to explore every possibility, but not if you are a casual player.

Please, don't post half-assed comments like "oh i can complete it without bloodshed!" because that makes us no better than the RIAA, MPAA, and all those other stupid groups that manipulate facts and stats to server their purpose.

More real life lesson

[bobtheprophet]

And of course, in real life I get points every time I run someone over!

What are you waiting for!?

[jvmatthe]

I still haven't picked up Vice City

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! ;^)

Lieberman & Gore still haven't figured it out.

[meldroc]

People like Lieberman still haven't grasped this simple concept.

If you don't like a game, DON'T PLAY IT!!!!

My Take

[Rob.Mathers]

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.

Re:My Take

[Gulthek]

"Oh lord," said William Shatner in a resigned voice.
-- Futurama "Where No Fan Has Gone Before"

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. ... 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.

Oookay. There are two problems with your argument.

1. You assume that children who have "violent tendencies"
   will have those tendencies augmented by playing a video game that plays on those tendencies. (i.e. harm the child)
2. You assume that not playing those games (i.e. their prohibition by an authority figure) will help to ameliorate those tendencies. (i.e. help the child)

There is no causal correlation between playing violent video games and becoming violent. There is no evidence to show that if a violent child plays violent video games that child will demonstrate an increased tendency towards violence. In fact, a recent study by MIT, The University of California at LA, and the University of London showed that violent video games are potentially helpful to children. By allowing them to act out their fantasies in a setting designed for that purpose those fantasies are relagated to the fantasy world and farther removed from the real world.

Futhermore, there is strong evidence showing that the stronger something is prohibited by authority figures, the more attractive it becomes to children (and not just rebellious children). Especially if it is something that is banned for no readily apparent reason.

Re:My Take

[BlueGecko]

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.

I buy that argument for adults, but not for kids. Studies on the effects of television have shown that (1) kids will pick up social and cultural norms from practically whatever they see, and (2) up until at least six and seven and sometimes as late as nine or ten, they really do not distinguish properly between fantasy and reality. In other words, a young kid watching a violent show who then engages in violent behavior may have nothing wrong with him except that he is learning, Pavlovian-dog style, that violence is good. Is such his natural tendancy? I absolutely believe that it isn't. But certainly we have adequate historical precedents (Sparta being a biggie) to show that kids absolutely pick up violence if it's part of their environment, even if nothing else is particularly wrong. Young kids honestly don't even really understand that death is permanent. Show him in his learning stages that people engage in wonton violence and that if they die they come back, and I don't care who the kid is, you really will get a violent kid who doesn't fear death.

I'm not arguing that videogames should be censored; all I'm saying is that a child (and I do mean child here, not a 16-year-old; someone that old who plays a violent game and then mimics it really does have a serious problem) really shouldn't play this kind of game. Nor am I arguing we should blame the video game per se; rather, we should blame the parents . I think that's something a lot of people miss and yet that is very important to discussing violent games such as GTA. So while you can enjoy videogames, know that it can affect those little kids, but be a good parent and ensure they don't play them until they're old enough. Do that, convey that message, and maybe we'll be able to keep the state from acting like our parents since our parents for us.

CNN Headline News

[Daleks]

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.

If I pirate Vice City...

[IIRCAFAIKIANAL]

... 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.

Ob Penny-Arcade

[still_sick]

"Now you know"

Lets be stupid

[quantax]

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.

Re:Big Deal

[Sentry21]

I played Descent 1-3 and Tomb Raider 1-5, and now I keep getting these urges to explore caves and mines. Why does no one ever talk about my plight?

--Dan

Bowling for Columbine (OT) (spoiler)

[pneuma_66]

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.

Re:Big Deal

[$rtbl_this]

You think that's bad? I played the Sims for a while and now I spend most of my time going to work, doing housework, socialising with friends and sleeping. That's a damned insidious game!

Unleashing the monster...

[sterno]

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 :)

Re:Unleashing the monster...

[IsoRashi]

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.

Re:Unleashing the monster...

[mcc]

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.

Re:Big deal

[drinkypoo]

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.

Me neither. In fact, since playing quake, my hand-eye coordination has improved threefold and now when I do a driveby, I hit 57% less pedestrians!

Now if that isn't a ringing endorsement for violent video games, I don't know what is.

Violent games vs racist games

[dirk]

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?

Re:If I wanted to read the NYT, I'd subscribe...

[AntiNorm]

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.