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.

Comments

WMD

[The Snowman]

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.

Re:Bullshit!

[bj8rn]

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...

Not inherently evil...

[kreyg]

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*

Re:Not inherently evil...

[EvilSporkMan]

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.

Re:So I got the GTA Double Pack for Xbox for Xmas.

[theantix]

"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.