Slashdot Mirror


Sim Sin City - Thoughts On Grand Theft Auto

Torill writes "Gonzalo Frasca has some thoughts on Grand Theft Auto in the new issue of Game Studies. He particularly notes: 'When designers create a simulation that encourages experimentation, they are taking a huge authorial risk: trusting their players'. He also weighs in on the controversy over GTA's content, arguing, devil's advocate style, that the Bible, Mein Kampf and Das Kapital have caused millions of deaths, while it is still hard to prove that computer games really have caused deaths at all: 'Do the math. There is actually proof that books are extremely dangerous. They should be considered weapons of mass destruction. If you are really concerned about media effects, forget videogames: you should start burning libraries right now'." Coincidentally, the name of the article ties in with the alleged name of the GTA sequel, again claimed to be 'Grand Theft Auto IV: Sin City', even after (coincidental?) April Fool's jokes and other confusion.

76 comments

  1. Hrmm... by PimpBot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is actually proof that books are extremely dangerous. They should be considered weapons of mass destruction.

    Heh. Farenheit 451 is coming true.

    1. Re:Hrmm... by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      It's a reductio ad absurdum...

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:Hrmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In defense of that comment, the impression I got was that it was a form of reductio ad absurdum; in other words "if you take that line of reasoning, you'd end up burning books, and we all know that's stupid."

    3. Re:Hrmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least they got some cool pills in 451. We don't even get that.

    4. Re:Hrmm... by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 1

      Quickly burn it so that people won't know!

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
    5. Re:Hrmm... by tprime · · Score: 1

      Actually,they should call it "Fahrenheit 193, the temperature that DVDs melt"

      --
      http://www.tomandemily.com
  2. So I got the GTA Double Pack for Xbox for Xmas... by Fortunato_NC · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and my only comment is (Eric Cartman Voice) "What's the big fucking deal, bitch?" GTA is violent, offensive, and crude. They even make spelling/usage mistakes ("Alright, we're gonna hit the pay role van"). But it's no more violent than "Boyz in The Hood", or "Goodfellas", or most any other "R"-rated movie. People complain that the game is disturbing children. What's disturbing children is a complete lack of responsibility on the part of their parents. If you are the type of person who would buy a game called "Grand Theft Auto" for your children, the problem isn't with the game, it is with the total abscence of parenting skills you're displaying.

    And as for the "Kill all the Haitians" controversy - Vice City has been on the market for a year, maybe more for the PS2. I know I got sick of those 80's themed commercials a long time ago. As far as I've noticed in the media, there is no wholesale slaughter of Haitians on America's streets. In fact, it was the hubbub that made me go out and buy the game! I bet executives at Rockstar and Take Two Interactive go home at night and roll naked in piles of cash screaming "Thank you for all the free advertising, Haitian Videogame Activists! It's going to be a Happy New Year after all!"

    It's always the same. Whether it's Eminem, GTA, NWA, professional wrestling, or whatever, there will always be some lazy ass parent who would rather trample all over my right as an adult to read the books I want, listen to the music I want, watch the movies I want, and play the video games I want, rather than actually expend the effort to see what their children are reading, listening to, watching, and playing.

    --
    Blogging Weight Loss, Distance Education, and more at verlin.com
  3. The concept of freedom is good. by Sheetrock · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If the game is worth playing, I'd say allowing the player the freedom to try new things or take multiple paths to win is an excellent way to increase the replay value.

    Now, there are some games are long enough where replay value really doesn't make a difference (Chrono Chross?) because it is physically impossible to play them through more than twice in your lifetime, but for shorter games it's almost a must to avoid complaints of the game being far too short. From what I've heard, GTA3/Vice City offer enough to do to allow a person to spend almost a little too much time in its environment.

    --

    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




    1. Re:The concept of freedom is good. by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      From what I've heard, GTA3/Vice City offer enough to do to allow a person to spend almost a little too much time in its environment.

      I've been a fan of GTA ever since it was a top-down 2d game in it's first incarnation.

      On the one hand, there is a huge variety of side missions you can do that are only tangentially related to the plot, if at all. These little side missions can keep the game interesting for a little while, but if you're stuck on the plot missions and can't get past them (*cough* DRIVER *cough*), and you've done all the side missions to death (taxi, vigilante, rampage, ambulance, racing, "ice cream" delivery, RC cars, hidden packages, etc), it can get very boring.

      I think what GTA needs is Diablo-II style map randomness. Either that, or just a wider selection of maps (imagine a "choose city" screen at the beginning of the game :)

    2. Re:The concept of freedom is good. by dafoomie · · Score: 1

      You must not think the concept of freedom is good in real life if you have that rediculous petition in your sig.

  4. Strengths carry over to networked version ? by leoaugust · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is GTA3's second major design accomplishment: creating both a main character and a world that allows the game to live practically without any form of verbal communication.

    I think this is a very interesting point. I know he talks about this as an improvement over the NPC's (Non Playable Characters), but if the same strength of non-verbal communication has to be translated into a networked version of the games with Playable/Playing Characters - would the lack of verbal communication succeed there ? What would other alternatives for communication be in this world?

    --
    To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies ...
    1. Re:Strengths carry over to networked version ? by Wanjoon · · Score: 1

      Personally, I actually don't think this is a "major design accomplishment" of GTA3. See my post on the matter, last one on the first page of this thread, and subsequent discussion.

  5. WMD by The+Snowman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There is actually proof that books are extremely dangerous. They should be considered weapons of mass destruction.

    The FBI is one step ahead of you: If you possess an almanac, they think you might be a terrorist.

    --
    24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    1. Re:WMD by isorox · · Score: 2

      (Score:5, Interesting)

      Anyone else think Slashdot should have a "Score 5: Worrying" button?

    2. Re:WMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's only for non-whites stop worrying

  6. Bullshit! by Gleng · · Score: 5, Insightful
    arguing, devil's advocate style, that the Bible, Mein Kampf and Das Kapital have caused millions of deaths

    The Bible doesn't cause millions of deaths, religious fanatics do.

    Mein Kampf doesn't cause millions of deaths, Nazis do.

    Das Kapital doesn't cause millions of deaths, armed dictators do.

    It's always the same story. You have a dangerously insane person, weapons, and a violent or provocative book, movie, or video game. Which is it that the authorities always try to remove from society?

    --
    "Proudly Posting Without Reading The Article"
    1. Re:Bullshit! by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      In other words...
      Books don't kill people.... I do.


      (based on Weird Al's NRA parody commercial in _UHF_)

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    2. Re:Bullshit! by metalmario · · Score: 0

      you are absolutely right, but i think that the author of that article wanted to say that if GTA3 will be removed from the markets, so should bible and other provocative instruments, too. which isn't going to happen. so GTA3 should be allowed to stay.

    3. Re:Bullshit! by Chmcginn · · Score: 1

      Well, come on... we can't remove the weapons from that, that'd be violating the second ammendment. And state-run mental institutions are far, far too expensive (how many of them have been closed down in the last decade or two?). So we've got to take all their good ideas away from them... obviously the crazy people won't figure out how to use the guns/firebombs/whatever without some kind of example... right?

      --
      Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
    4. Re:Bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "The Bible doesn't cause millions of deaths, religious fanatics do."

      Yes, but the authors point was to combat the misinterpretation by the media that Grand Theft Auto causes deaths. It would be equally logical to say "Grand Theft Auto doesn't cause deaths, violent people do", which is the true reality of the situaion for both that statement as well as you're own, however no one who is arguing against violent videogames right now understands that simple concept, and this is what he was trying to point out.

    5. Re:Bullshit! by bj8rn · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In this context, it seems kinda ironic that a few years ago, the same author has written an article where he claims that videogames trivialize the value of life...

      --
      Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
    6. Re:Bullshit! by Gleng · · Score: 4, Insightful
      we can't remove the weapons from that, that'd be violating the second ammendment

      I was speaking generally rather than focusing on the US. The second ammendment has no influence in my country, so owning weapons is quite rightly illegal. I see this as a very good thing. I'm very glad I don't live in a country where any maniac can own a gun.

      I also can't see how a state run mental institution would cost much more than a state run prison*. Surely diagnosis, cure, and rehabilitation makes more sense than inprisonment after a terrible crime has been committed.

      * pure conjecture. I have no idea of the figures ;)

      obviously the crazy people won't figure out how to use the guns/firebombs/whatever without some kind of example

      You have a point there, but you have to wonder. Someone who is unstable enough to make the life altering decision to hurt people or blow something up based on a video game (or movie, book, webpage) is going to crack sooner or later and do something terrible anyway. Removing the stimulus is just treating the symptoms.

      --
      "Proudly Posting Without Reading The Article"
    7. Re:Bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd state it rather differently. Books don't cause deaths (well, not unless a lot of them fall on you or something). The people you mention cause the deaths. The common ground is that the people killing others do so because of the ideas they have. The books are the embodiment of those ideas.

      People who think that burning books solves problems are missing the point. You don't get rid of the ideas by burning the books. You get rid of the ideas by influencing people. Would somebody raised to value all human life act as a Nazi would? Somebody who values human life could read Mein Kampf a million times and not want to kill anyone.

      It's all about raising people with the right values. Authorities should be trying to remove bad parents from society, not bad books or videogames.

    8. Re:Bullshit! by Gleng · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I understand that the commment was made tongue in cheek, as in "if you're going to ban video games, ban everything". But I've heard comments like the one in the article said in all seriousness many times, and it makes my blood boil. :)

      --
      "Proudly Posting Without Reading The Article"
    9. Re:Bullshit! by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 2
      It seems like you don't know what "devil's advocate style" means. The author was making the point that neither the Bible, Mein Kampf, or Das Kapital caused millions of deaths. So your post is just a restatement of what the article was already stating - except the article made the further point of bringing violent video games to the argument.

      How this got modded to +5 I do not understand. Mods and Gleng: here

      --
      I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
    10. Re:Bullshit! by isorox · · Score: 1

      I was speaking generally rather than focusing on the US. The second ammendment has no influence in my country, so owning weapons is quite rightly illegal. I see this as a very good thing. I'm very glad I don't live in a country where any maniac can own a gun.

      I also live in a country where a few years ago owning a handgun was banned. Gun crime since the ban has increased threefold.

    11. Re:Bullshit! by bsartist · · Score: 1

      I'm very glad I don't live in a country where any maniac can own a gun.

      I'm very glad I don't live in a country where it's illegal to defend myself.

      --
      Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
    12. Re:Bullshit! by Richard+Allen · · Score: 1

      I'm very glad I don't live in a country where any maniac can own a gun.

      Sure you do ... only the law abiding citizens can't. Maniacs can own all the guns they want.

    13. Re:Bullshit! by Imperial+Tacohead · · Score: 1

      What country is this? Can you cite any figures?

    14. Re:Bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His sig says it all: "Proudly Posting Without Reading the Article."

    15. Re:Bullshit! by Funky+Ferret · · Score: 1

      I don't know of any country where it's illegal to defend yourself.

      Illegal to defend yourself with a gun, yes, but that's just a restriction on the tools you can use.
      It's fairly unimaginative to equate the activity to one style of (pardon the pun) execution.

    16. Re:Bullshit! by Funky+Ferret · · Score: 1

      Isn't there a difference between books like the Bible, which are at least by implication didactic and advocate ways to behave, and something like GTA, which is simply an artifact open to interpretation?

      To prove how rhetorical that question is, admittedly by switching genres, I remember that when Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs came out it was hailed as genius partly because it showed the real effects of being shot (in the stomach, Mr Orange IIRC), and consequently de-glamorized violence. [Yes, the ear scene rather undercut that, but bear with me].

      What I'm getting it is the gap between something offering instruction - any scripture, Machiavelli's Prince , possibly Mein Kampf - and something that is just put out there for people to react to. There's no guidance in GTA about what you do; you simply play it and draw your own conclusions. The game itself offers no instruction, in the way of a novel or a film.

      The reason didactic works are abused is not because of the content, but because some people will manoeuvre to be the interpreter, and can then impose their ideas on others using the original book for authority. This means that there are two problematic factors: the manipulative moral-free people who use this as a control mechanism, and the manipulated mind-free people who follow the instructions.

      GTA stands without interpretation. It does not have an overt manifesto which can be followed rightly, or misinterpreted. It presents something which the person using it has to make judgments about for themselves.

      Unfortunately, it also attracts people who are not able to make rational judgments about what happens [and the same applies to the Matrix-inspired killers]. When your sense of reality is diminished anyway, the reward mechanism for illegal and violent behaviour (built into GTA) will be a contributing factor to tipping you further into your own world and out of the communal one with all those damn laws.

      Two final points to my rant.
      The Bible in itself is clearly against most of the bad things done in its name. The problem is that people need to understand how to think before you let them near a book of instructions.
      Das Capital is only tangentially connected to the systems of "communism" that exist. It suffers from similar problems, in that real communism requires disinterested and objective administrators to run the system, and the people who want those jobs are rarely selfless and good people. It's essentially the same requirements as theoretically apply to any politician.

    17. Re:Bullshit! by isorox · · Score: 1

      BBC
      Gun crime has increased in recent years, including a near doubling of handgun offences since 1996, the year of the Dunblane massacre.

      Doubling, not trebling then. The ban on hand guns came in 1997 because of Dunblane.

    18. Re:Bullshit! by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      Less than doubling. Without knowing the rate at which it was rising per annum before banning of handguns, you can't speculate about what effect the ban has had. Even knowing, correlation does not mean causation. There are plenty of other possible reasons.

    19. Re:Bullshit! by isorox · · Score: 1

      Actually it was falling. Obviously A doesnt neccersarilly cause B, but we were told that Gun Crime would fall when handguns were banned. Instead every amesty since has had people handing in old revolvers and stuff that were in display cases, but never the ones on the streets.

  7. (-1, over used joke) by Drakin · · Score: 3, Funny
    Watch out for these guys then!

    (I couldn't resist at all)

  8. It wasn't that long... by Chmcginn · · Score: 1
    Now, there are some games are long enough where replay value really doesn't make a difference (Chrono Chross?) because it is physically impossible to play them through more than twice in your lifetime

    The trick is, don't bother sleeping for a couple or three weeks, and spend that 50 hours or so a week playing it. Then you can easily finish it three or four times between the Super Bowl and the start of MLB...

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
    1. Re:It wasn't that long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chrono Cross should be relatively easy to beat multiple times since you can maintain power and characters if you beat the game once. Plus, you get an item that can speed up the passage of time, allowing you to go through crap stuff really fast.

  9. Shouldn't that be GTA V? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the alleged name of the GTA sequel, again claimed to be 'Grand Theft Auto IV: Sin City'

    I thought GTA 4 was Vice City . . . the next would be 5.

    1. Re:Shouldn't that be GTA V? by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 3, Informative
      Rockstar has already said that GTA: VC is not GTA IV and that is was rather more of an expansion/map pack than a full fledged sequel, of course they charged full price for it.

      So the next GTA will be 4.

      --
      I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
    2. Re:Shouldn't that be GTA V? by damien_kane · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I thought GTA 4 was Vice City . . . the next would be 5.

      Nope, just like GTA: London 1969 (the expansion to GTA) was not GTA2.
      And I don't think that GTA4 will be called 'Sin City', as in the first GTA there was three cities: Liberty City (New York, the world of GTA3); Vice City (Miami, the world of GTA:VC); and San Andreas City (LA, and the only city they haven't made 3D yet).

    3. Re:Shouldn't that be GTA V? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      of course they charged full price for it.

      Wich I gladly payed. Even if it's just an expansion nobody can deny it's merits as a game that offers quality graphics, great music and, the most important, lots of fun.

  10. Rule by force is the worst example. by DrSkwid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When society uses law and force as the ultimate methods of control it should come as no surprise that individuals also use such methods within their micro-societies.

    Play is the freedom to act with reduced consequence. Should we proscribe playing 'cops and robbers' because it causes crime?

    What about 'hunt the WMD'?

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  11. Just you wait... by clambake · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just waiting for the day that a big crate of GTA CDs falls off a truck and crushes some little hatian boy to death... The "games kill" people will go nuts.

  12. Don't burn libraries! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Burn churches and political institutions.

  13. Re:So I got the GTA Double Pack for Xbox for Xmas. by stuph · · Score: 1

    I bet executives at Rockstar and Take Two Interactive go home at night and roll naked in piles of cash screaming "Thank you for all the free advertising, Haitian Videogame Activists! It's going to be a Happy New Year after all!"

    there's always some corporate executives rolling naked in cash somewhere, isn't there? those silly guys... i'd spend the money and buy hookers to roll naked over.. sheesh

    --
    --Less Thinkin', More Drinkin'...
  14. They haven't played GTA2 by M3wThr33 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just like mentioning hookers, if you have to question where the next GTA will be based you haven't played the first two.

    GTA2 had THREE cities. Liberty City, Vice City and San Andreas City.

  15. I don't know about weapons of mass destruction... by stuph · · Score: 1

    They should be considered weapons of mass destruction

    But damn if getting hit in the head by a hardback book doesn't hurt like the dickens..

    --
    --Less Thinkin', More Drinkin'...
  16. Ummmm..... by Chmcginn · · Score: 3, Informative
    Well, apparently my sarcasm was just lost... sorry. To restate...

    I also can't see how a state run mental institution would cost much more than a state run prison*. Surely diagnosis, cure, and rehabilitation makes more sense than inprisonment after a terrible crime has been committed.

    Well, it actually is a lot more expensive, mostly due to staff issues - the number of guards, orderlies, and doctor per patient is higher (and the pay per capita greater) than the number of CO's. But it's not better... Because it's expensive, and people don't want to pay for it (or politicians convince people they don't want to pay for it), the marginal patients get let out, where they end up causing trouble one way or another...

    And, well, I think it's kind of obvious that somebody who's seriously lost their mind, and has access to weapons, will figure out something they can do however you look at it. (Although a movie/book/whatever may end up giving them ideas of more creative ways to do evil...)

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
    1. Re:Ummmm..... by Gleng · · Score: 1
      Well, apparently my sarcasm was just lost... sorry.

      Ah, sorry, it's late here ;)

      Yes, I can see now how mental institutions could run to much higher costs.

      Also, how would the potentially dangerous be detected before they commit a crime, without some kind of mass public screening? I can't see that being too popular either.

      I suppose our current systems are the best, or at least most feasable, we have.

      --
      "Proudly Posting Without Reading The Article"
  17. Wrong! It is the original Grand Theft Auto. by twootwoot · · Score: 1

    Huh? GTA2 doesn't have have 3 cities. It is the original Grand Theft Auto game.

    1. Re:Wrong! It is the original Grand Theft Auto. by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 4, Informative

      Exactly.

      The first GTA had Liberty City (New York), San Andreas (Los Angeles) and Vice City (Miami).

      GTA: London was of course set in London.

      GTA2 had three areas of one city. Downtown, Residential and Industrial.

      Since GTA3 was situated in Liberty City and GTA: Vice City was situated in Vice City (duh!), the next GTA is most likely going to be situated in San Andreas, possibly in a 70ies setting.

      --
      Eat the rich.
  18. Re:I don't know about weapons of mass destruction. by damien_kane · · Score: 1

    But damn if getting hit in the head by a hardback book doesn't hurt like the dickens..

    It works well for getting rid of headaches (or at least making it feel like the headache isn't there)...

  19. Not inherently evil... by kreyg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When designers create a simulation that encourages experimentation, they are taking a huge authorial risk: trusting their players

    I've been thinking things like this for quite a while.

    You know what? Real Life is inherently Evil, because you can do a practically limitless number of evil things in Real Life, while you can only do a limited number of pretend evil things in GTA. Let's ban Real Life!

    GTA is inherently benign until the player actually does something (OK, there might be a little bit of nastniness in the intro). Any actually illegal, violent or Evil actions come from the player, the game isn't just sitting there being the embodiment of evil, even if you believe such a thing can exist.

    Mostly I think we should just ban anyone who can't separate reality from fantasy from playing such games, which would include pretty well everyone who is complaining about it. Oh, wait, big assumption here - that any of them have even played it so they understand what they're talking about.

    *sigh*

    --
    sig fault
    1. Re:Not inherently evil... by EvilSporkMan · · Score: 1

      So is it possible to complete the game "legally"? If not, the game isn't exactly "inherently benign", as completion requires at least some offensive or "corrupting" actions.

      --
      -insert a witty something-
    2. Re:Not inherently evil... by kreyg · · Score: 1

      It is what you make of it. You are not compelled to finish the game - if you don't like what you have to do, you are quite free not to do it. That was my whole point, did you miss it that completely?

      --
      sig fault
    3. Re:Not inherently evil... by EvilSporkMan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're also free not to eat, as long as you don't mind dying. The premise of GTA is such that you're forced into illegal behavior - you're already a criminal on the run, right? The game would be what you made of it if it allowed alternate methods of completion, like standing in line for the supermarket, and the ability to shoot at passing cars with a sniper rifle and cause all that GTA mayhem was just one option.

      --
      -insert a witty something-
    4. Re:Not inherently evil... by bentcd · · Score: 1

      You never actually "complete" GTA. The game never ends.
      You can aim for "100% complete" if you like, but then, there's a million other stats in the game as well that you might want to aim for. Such as number of people rescued in paramedics missions.

      --
      sigs are hazardous to your health
  20. Re:I don't know about weapons of mass destruction. by MichaelGCD · · Score: 1

    But damn if getting slashed in the face by a Vice City CD shard doesn't hurt like the dickens..

    --
    hate titty pee colon slash slash
  21. Weak by pudge · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He seriously weakens his point by asserting that any books have caused any deaths. The Bible and Mein Kampf have killed no one. People use books to kill, or encourage others to kill. The book itself causes nothing.

    And in this sense, he is mostly attacking a straw man: the most serious detractors of violent video games rarely assert the games cause violence, only that they encourage violent tendencies, etc.

    1. Re:Weak by scabb · · Score: 1
      His argument isn't about GTA being a non-violent game! He's looking at why the game has been succesful. How it succeeds where Shenmue failed. Maybe if you'd actually read the article, you'd realise that.



      Why can't anyone ever talk about those aspects of GTA, instead of immediatly chiming in with "GTA doesn't cause violence, that's bullshit!"

    2. Re:Weak by pudge · · Score: 1

      Maybe if you'd actually read the article, you'd realise that.

      Maybe if you understood what I was saying, you wouldn't have posted something that was entirely irrelevant to my post! Oopsie on you.

    3. Re:Weak by Ed_Moyse · · Score: 1
      Come on - he's making the point that the same people who claim that games make people killers (i.e. idiots) should also seek to ban books. Even these idiots aren't claiming that games *physically* kill anyone, rather that they incite violence. Which as he says, is clearly the case with some books.


      With your last point, I think you're making an extremely nit-picking point ... there is VERY little difference between asserting "that the games cause violence" and "that they encourage violent tendencies". I also think you're wrong - for example when ID were sued, I'm damn well sure that the parents were claiming that ID were *responsible* (otherwise how could they sue), which would imply that Doom etc. were causing the actual violence.

    4. Re:Weak by pudge · · Score: 1

      Even these idiots aren't claiming that games *physically* kill anyone, rather that they incite violence. Which as he says, is clearly the case with some books.

      He said the books DO kill people. Please go back and read, KTHX.

    5. Re:Weak by RedWizzard · · Score: 1
      He seriously weakens his point by asserting that any books have caused any deaths. The Bible and Mein Kampf have killed no one. People use books to kill, or encourage others to kill. The book itself causes nothing.
      Which is exactly the charge levelled at GTA and other video games. No one has yet suggested that anyone has died on the razor sharp edge of a GTA3 CD.
    6. Re:Weak by pudge · · Score: 1

      Which is exactly the charge levelled at GTA and other video games.

      What I said is that the most serious detractors of these games do NOT charge this.

    7. Re:Weak by scabb · · Score: 1

      What you were saying was irrelevant - although I agree with your point. His argument was not about the violence used in the game. His article was not about the violence used in the game. That was merely a paragraph or two. But forget it.

    8. Re:Weak by pudge · · Score: 1

      What you were saying was irrelevant

      I didn't say his whole article sucked, only that he weakened that one point. I don't think it is irrelevant.

      But forget it.

      No! YOU forget it! :)

    9. Re:Weak by RedWizzard · · Score: 1
      What I said is that the most serious detractors of these games do NOT charge this.
      The post-Columbine rash of people claiming that "video games made them do it" support my assertion that they do make those claims (I don't know if you class these people as "serious detractors" or not, but they were certainly highly visible). Can you produce some evidence that they do not?
    10. Re:Weak by Ed_Moyse · · Score: 1

      I did read it thanks. I accept that what he wrote isn't very clear), I think it's fairly obvious what he meant (unless you get your jollies from being unnecessarily pedantic). The author doesn't appear to be completely insane so he cannot ACTUALLY be claiming that books physically kill. What he means is that books incite violence, or that they cause violence. Which is exactly what some people say about games. Which was the point of my post.

    11. Re:Weak by pudge · · Score: 1

      What he means is that books incite violence, or that they cause violence.

      And, since he said they actually cause death, he was therefore weakening his case. Exactly.

  22. Re:So I got the GTA Double Pack for Xbox for Xmas. by theantix · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "But it's no more violent than "Boyz in The Hood", or "Goodfellas", or most any other "R"-rated movie."

    In fact, I would suggest that a game like GTA3 Vice City is far less violent than the movies that you quoted... the graphics are more cartoonish and the plot more rediculous, which reduces the violent intensity of the game. The problem is not that GTA3 and Vice City are more violent than other games, that argument is foolish because there are many other games that consist solely of violence.

    What makes the Grand Theft Auto 3 and Vice City games unique is the degree of freedom that they permit the gamer to do whatever they please. Even when compared to similar styled games like 'The Getaway' or 'True Crime: Streets of LA', the GTA franchise is alone in the degree to which the operater can cause mayhem of wide variety and of spectacular consequence.

    I've listened to whiners complain about violent video games and called bullshit each time. But this time I'm not so certain that the game had no role in making kids more violent. I know that at least for myself I can attest to GTA3 influencing my thought patterns after playing a long stretch of the game. I think it's foolhardy to assume that these immersive games that allow such a wide degree of freedom not to have an effect on our behaviour.

    Does that mean that Take Two is fully responsible for those two dumbass kids that shot the trucker? No, and I'm not suggesting that. What I'm saying is that there is *something* going on there, and it's no more accurate to say that GTA3 doesn't affect behaviour any more than to say that Take Two is the work of the devil. Someone more qualified than I (and I suspect you also) could probably quanitify the effect though, I would be quite interested in seeing the results of a study based on that.

    --
    501 Not Implemented
  23. Unpopular opinions posted here by ash*embers · · Score: 1

    Ok, I will be first in line to say that parents could show more miles of discretion in what they allow their children to play. I'll also be first in line to say that as an adult, violent videogames can be a great diversion - especially for those dissatisfied with office work. That said however, it strikes me as unbelievable as to how often peaceful strategies in gaming is ignored. The only FPS-type games to give it credence is Deus Ex, and even there you have to opt for the frequent take-down. This mirrors the spy life, I know, but encouraging life-ending behaviors does show a lack of imagination on the storywriters' parts. Redemptive violence is such an old theme that we don't know how to find alternatives. Every writer (from now to the beginning of time, and that does include Shakespeare) that has blindly bought into this paradigm. We should be ashamed. I dare say it's a trap. Not the kind of trap that warrants censorship, but a greater imagination and artistic creativity than we currently believe in. I just don't see anyone who's got the balls for it anymore.

  24. No wonder they want to kill us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If jews and christians are represented by you, then I dont blame them for wanting to kill you. Hell, _I_ want to kill you!

  25. Sim Sin City? by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

    Didn't someone already come out with a GTA-like game based in Springfield?

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?