Slashdot Mirror
Grand Theft Auto Retrospective
Sadkey writes "In light of the release of Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories for the PSP, UGO has posted a retrospective around the GTA games. "Come take a trip through time, and see how a franchise went from a cult hit to a cultural phenomenon, set the tone for an entire generation, and made open-ended gameplay a buzzword of the early 21st century. It's a long, bumpy ride, but at the end, Grand Theft Auto stands tall as the game that changed everything.' ."
I remember playing the top down GTAs and just loving it. Great games.
Two words: Kill Frenzy!
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
But i've learned to prefer the 'from behind' view
...when will they release Grand Theft Auto: Model T Ford edition when you travel the early 20th century speeding around at 15 miles an hour and running illegal moonshine.
I don't get it.
Stop it stop it stop it! You are making me feel old! I am only 21, it was NOT that long ago damnit!
Ok so I did spend two entire days downloading GTA from a Warez site over dialup 2MB zip file by 2MB zip file.....
Ouch that was awhile back wasn't it...
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
Ironically, with the huge surge in multiplayer games in the last few years, GTA is one of the few examples of the death of multiplayer in a series. The first two GTAs (the top down ones) had wonderful multiplayer. It easily is in my top 5 list of the best multiplayer games of all time. The shift to 3D, for some reason, meant no multiplayer. Yeah, there is a mod for GTA (MTA I think) which adds multiplayer, and it's good but its still in its infancy last I checked. I really would like to see Rockstar add multiplayer to the game.
This looks more like it:
http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/mafia
Advice for my fellow geeks: before seeking out that threesome you dream of, you might see what a TWOsome is like first.
It's a long, bumpy ride...spent looking out the sideways view if you catch my drift
I loved GTA 3. Played a little Vice City. Have they really added value as they have continued the franchise or are they beating a dead horse (until stacks of stacks of bills appear).
I seem to recall a few obscure games from a company called Maxis! Sheesh, GTA3 is great, but they hardly invented or popularized the open-ended game.
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
GTA was only fun with the topdown view. GTA3 seems like it just lost the spirirt of the games.
GTA 1/London/2 and GTA 3/VC/SA shouldn't be called the same game series. They're vastly different (in playing style and looks) to the point where they're almost polar opposits. It's like comparing the 3D sonics to Sonic on the mega drive. One was great and the other is good but it's just not the same.
I like muppets.
I've never really liked the GTA games personally. I've thought that they had alot of potential, but for myself- and I'm sure a lot of other people, the story and the missions never really held much appeal for me. It's not that I'm against the violence in the games, I enjoy violent games quite a bit- but I've never been able to empathise with the characters of the series at all.
What I would like to see is some of the "influence" that the GTA series has supposely had in gaming put into something other than making clones with crappier gameplay and crappier stories. Instead I would like to see developers take the massive non-linear 3D world concept and create more games like Shenmue, or given the emphasis on driving in the games, something like Fast and the Furious where the player starts down at the bottom, maybe jacking cars or working as a delivery boy, and rises on the street racing circut (OK, I would hate that game too, but it's just an idea). What about an RPG that takes place inside of a single living city? Something like Blood Omen where you play a vampire who stalks the streets of a huge vibrant faux-new york city feeding on the innocent and battling for territory against rival vampire gangs?
Of course, GTA wasn't the first game to take place in a large, non-linear city. Shenmue had a much deeper world and IIRC was out a few years before GTAIII. Crazy Taxi had a huge non-linear city, fast dangerous driving and missions as well.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that GTA may have been well executed in a lot of ways, but it wasn't necessarily THAT innovative, and that if it was as influential as the article states, then why are the only games I can find now that are vaguely based off the GTA formula horribly inferior ripoffs with the same criminal motif?
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
I enjoy so called "open ended games" for a few minutes to a few hours, after that I feel that it is a waste of time.
.... then I am just bored of it suddenly.
All respect to Rockstar, the game is kickass, I just cannot help it but it leaves me all the time with the game unfinished and me bored to hell of it.
I can't help it. I KNOW that it is not more of a waste of time, that playing far-cry hours long online and stealing the sample and shooting the same buddies in the same time for hours, or running thru a doom 3 map and killing monsters from hell, but somehow it just gets boring to be so open-ended.
Kill all humans took me 1 hour to showe it in the "never see it again pile", while GTA kept entertaining me for many hours.
I have the same problem with racing games. I progress, and progress, and progress
In GTA, the missions give some linearity, but it is too "open" to restart a mission without driving for 10 minutes, but to linear to skip a mission that just annoys you.
You might say that I need directions, but I don't in real life - I am working alone without a boss, and were in management a few times here and there and can plan a day or a project on my own.
So what is the problem? Could not figure it out.
Online play can entertain me for hours: I can play CTF or TS on xlink or xbc for a day straight, but DM makes me bored in 30 mins tops.
I've read that Japanese players cannot take open ended games in general as they need a score or a mission to chase/finish all the time.
Dunno, I guess I will skip the next installment of GTA and choose something with a good multiplayer mode as story modes are just getting the same old crap over and over to mee to.
Hmm, actually just got a bunch of games to try, and realized, that all I am interested in gaming is shooting or racing people online untill I fall asleep in front of my projector...
Am I missing the point of GTA ? Maybe I need an online version of GTA-style open endedness?
I was actually looking at reviews of matrix massive online multiplayer, but so many people complained that I decided not to buy it at the end... So what ?
One of the best bugs^H^H^H^H features of the first two GTAs was the fun-packed, sync-less net play! I remember playing it in my school's computer lab (which had a very laggy network) with other "students":
Player 1: HA! Burn, mother fucker!
Player 2: What do you mean? I just ran over you!
Player 3: Hey guys, will you stop walking towards the building's walls?
the good side was that everybody always won.
My other account has mod points.
I realize that GTA has fans, and that this game is unlike ANYTHING that has ever been on a portable platform (self-made portable PS2 hacks notwithstanding). But how can a game with such terrible flaws (read the reviews) as no difficulty difference between early and ending missions (except for the fact your weapons are terrible at the start), a bad camera and terrible targeting system, and mind-numbingly boring/anoying missions get 90+% grades?
Simple: no one wants to risk pissing off GTA lovers and losing them as readers/viewers/subscribers.
Don't get me wrong. I loved GTA 1 and 2. I played GTA 3 and found it fun to drive around but I didn't get far due to the terrible targeting. I loved Vice City even more (great soundtrack) and got farther, but I eventually dumped the game for the same reasons. The game was better, but it still wasn't there. I haven't played San An, and I don't intend to play LCS now.
Bugs and problems were OK for GTA 3, it was a first of it's kind (being a 3D world). Vice City was buggy and they should have done better. I don't know if the targeting was fixed for San An (I heard it was better) but I didn't care by that point. Then they release this game shortly after with all these problems. I realize it's the first on the platform for the series, and that the second analog stick is missing, but come one. You've made THREE OF THESE GAMES BY NOW, can't you fix some of this stuff?
They were rushing it, or they didn't care. Those are the only two reasons I can think of for having the same problems that put me off of GTA 3 four years ago this week.
The sandbox they created is fantastic. The stories and great, and the games have tons of replay value. But playing occaisionally makes me feel like I'm running towards $1,000,000 in a foot and a half of water. There is something great there, I can see it, but getting there is just so hard .
These days I'm getting less and less time to play games. My backlog is piling up. I just finished Pyschonauts (Great game, but the framerate on the PS2 version was a JOKE), and I'm in the middle of Sly 3 now (better than Sly 2!). If I was a freshman in highschool and had the time to commit, I may be able to play it. But at this point I don't need to fight a game to play it. There are a couple of games I've got RIGHT NOW that I know will be good that I won't have to do that for.
Sorry Rockstar. Try harder, huh?
-- A guy who wants to love GTA
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Let's see, the game(s) glorify pimping hookers, killing cops, stealing cars, and just about every other lawless act imaginable.
It's a long, bumpy ride, but at the end, Grand Theft Auto stands tall as the game that changed everything.
This is a good thing? Sorry, but I'd rather see a fresh new installment of Mario 64 (where art thou?) than another GTA. I realize a lot of people disagree with me, and that's fine. But I don't see anything so great about pushing games that promote ugly and disgusting behavior, regardless of whether or not the players can tell the difference.
Or to put it another way, if it's not okay in the real world, why waste your time immersing yourself in it? Go read a book or something. (Argh! Must... resist... temptation... to... complain... about... crappy... commercialization... of... books...)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
GTA 1 and 2 are free downloads now from RockStar...
Grand Theft Auto - Free Download
Grand Theft Auto 2 - Free Download
wait no more, the psp's GTA:LCS has over half a dozen multiplayer modes. I believe it may support only as little as 6 players, but don't quote me on that.
I actually enjoyed Tommy Vercetti the most of the GTA protagonists, simply because he had an aditude. Fido's inability to speak kind of hurt the storyline and suspension of disbelief, if you ask me. But I don't really care.
CJ is probably my least favorite protagonist; he's just too naieve. It's as if rockstar is trying to dumb the game down so that people understand the storyline on the first play through. Oh, well.
Great series, regardless.
Obligatory Soundbite Catchphrase
"It's a long, bumpy ride..."
;)
oh yeah, bumpy ride, all right... *cough* coffee scene *cough*
"Grand Theft Auto stands tall..."
not the only thing standing tall
Final fantasy once you get the airship, the "Secret of..." games from the same company, the Legend of Zelda games (moreso than the Squaresoft games). Mario 64?
For my money, the GTA series has to be one of the most overrated franchises currently being milked. While it certainly enjoys lots of free press by virtue of its once-shocking but now-old-news violence and depravity, it really doesn't seem to have grown much since it first went 3D. Rockstar found a working formula in GTA3 (after the the original games failed commercially), and have been suckling at that same teat ever since. I played the original GTA3 for a short while, and saw a little of Vice City, and I have to say, it does nothing for me. Once you get past the shock value of being able to beat a granny to death with a baseball bat, there's really not much in the way of compelling gameplay. The missions are fairly uninspired, the story is utterly generic, and there's nothing in it that really grabs me. I think "open-ended" in and of itself doesn't necessarily make for a good game, and leads to the pacing of the game being very haphazard, depending. I'm sure fans of the series would disagree, but perhaps they're better able to overlook the games' flaws than I am.
Anytime you're ready Rockstar. I mean San Andreas is by anyone's definition an RPG.. get on with it.
How we know is more important than what we know.
But it makes me want to kill people. :(
and I'll cheerfully take the mod hit if someone can answer this for me. Is this true of UK cops?
*If police fear there might be serious violence in a particular area they can stop and search anyone in that area for up to 24 hours. In these circumstances the police do not need co have a reasonable suspicion that you are carrying a weapon or committing a crime. This very wide power can be used at raves, demonstrations etc.*
Seen at the good Dr. Bong
I realize the source might be questionable, but maybe it's right. I remember a heck of a lot of street cameras last time I was in Jolly Olde.
"As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
Please!!! They didn't even mention Lemmings... if it wasn't for this classic GTA wouldn't have gotten anywhere! Come one seriously look at the first GTA & Lemmings! Whats the difference? There was tons of BLOOD in LEMMINGS TOO!!!
when they ban enctryption only criminals wi$21*J *#JF$%!@#$':
I'm Still Waiting for Grand Theftendo
8 Bit NES Grand Theft Auto.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
Uh, bigger cities? Better graphics? Isn't that all they've been adding since GTA3? So far all they've added since GTA3 is a bigger world, subpar improvements to graphics, new vehicles, new missions and new side-missions. That reads expansion pack to me. Theres no new physics engine, no new real major additions (still no aircraft), and the graphics are bland considering how long and how many games Rockstar has developed for the PS2 (and Xbox).
I'm sorry, 'realistic AI'? Apparently no one remembers the failure known as State of Emergency. The AI in that game was supposed to be Rockstar's shining example of how well they could AI to add to gameplay. Instead it turned out to be unusable, annoying and pointless.
How the hell would 'pedestrians who live unique lives' make a game more fun let alone make a GTA game more fun? Last time I checked GTA was all about being able to do whatever you want, whenever you want, however you want and if you wanted to depopulate the city single-handedly, you could do that. Killing off NPCs who live 'unique lives' sounds like a great way at messing up the gameplay when you accidently shoot the mission NPC on his way to the grocery store.
Gee, wow. A GTA on a state or nationwide scale. How is that different from simply adding more areas? Oh wait, they already do that. The whole article is fanboyish considering how many of Rockstar's failures and flaws they look over.
If we're reading books, why don't we read THE book, eh?
No lawless acts in there, besides having sex with your daughter because God said, killing all the women and children because God said, making women leave the city when they have their period because God said, stoning to death fags because God said, etc. etc. etc.
What was your point again? That games promote ugly and disgusting behaviour?
Have you even READ a book besides "See Dick Run?" Go to a bookshop sometime -- it's wall to wall ugly and disgusting behaviours in there!
That's what fiction is, an exploration of the stuff we don't generally do.
I mean, really. Criticise games if you like, but please MAKE SENSE.
Because the Bible glorifies "sinful" acts? Ok, whatever.
I already addressed your "point" here. I have to say that it's rather disturbing that so many people can equate containing certain themes to glorifying those same themes.
Taking the Bible as an example, what happened when David slept with Bathsheba, then bumped off her husband? The profits certainly didn't show up and start yelling, "You da' MAN! Those moves are the shizzle!" Try opening the Old Testiment sometime. It shouldn't take you long to find something along the lines of, "Yet XYZ did not turn from their sinful ways, and God's wrath poured out upon them." (The New Testament is a heck of a lot more lenient due to the coming "grace" talked about in Galatians, but it still didn't glorify ugly behavior.)
Or moving onto more complex literature. Was the point of "Gone with the Wind" that Rhett Butler was such a great lady's man? He was manuvering Scarlett O'Hara toward the bed the entire book, but when she finally consented he merely said, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn." Why do you think that was, hmmm?
Is there any part in GTA where your character suddenly realizes the toll his lifestyle is taking and wants out? No? Why not? After all, isn't GTA like fine literature, chock full of lessons to be learned and humanities to analyze? Or perhaps it's just one big, antisocial, utterly meaningless, and depraved wankfest? "Look! I slept with the chick and bumped off her boyfriend! I'm the shizzle!" Great.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Anyone who thinks role-playing drive-by shootings and glorifying criminal culuture is kewel needs their head examining, in my book. Get a life. Go out and find a girlfriend. Learn to dance. Support a charity. Fill your life with anything but this evil rubbish.
s/profits/prophets/g
It's late, so there's probably more typos. That one just stuck out at me, though. Good night.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Can anyone point me towards a good open-ended rpg game? And I don't mean morrowind. I want a game similar in spirit to the old ultima 6/7 where you could just bake bread if you wanted to, get married etc etc and basically completely ignore what you were supposed to be doing wihout it feeling completely forced? :D
Even GTA is extremely limited in it's interactions with the surrounding worlds.
Oh and the game should have individual NPC schedules too
Bullshit. Utter, complete bullshit. If you want to get biblical, then let's go: Saul, coming back from sacking some city. A priest comes up to him and says "So, did you kill everything that lived, like God said?" Saul says "What are you crazy? No! We saved the women and children and the animals." And the priest says "Cursed are you by God blah blah blah." So, don't just get revenge on the unbelievers, kill their pets. Look it up. Elijah, walking in the woods, and some kids (like kids do) tease him and call him "old baldy head". Note that they don't shout out "hey chrome-dome" or "you old cunt" or anything _really_ offensive. God sends some she-bears out of the woods and tears a couple of kids to shreds. Yeah! That's an appropriate response to teasing. If you get teased at school, kids, go get a gun and start blasting. I mean, that's what God does. Look it up. And those are just two of _hundreds_ of examples of attractive behaviour encouraged by the "good book". What was your point again?
It's poorly written, repetitive, and half the time the guy doesn't seem to know what he's talking about. He calls GTA3 the first "sandbox" game? Really? How about SimCity? Bah. I hope Rockstar didn't pay too much for this fluff piece.
It's always easy to tell the people who've read the damn book for themselves and have taken the time to understand it from the people who got their theology from that thoroughly debunked, foaming at the mouth, anti-christian questionnaire that was going around. Ah, just more evidence of how few people can think for themselves and make their own decisions in life.
"Quick! Tell me what to think!"
At least Asimov read the book before ranting on it.
It involves to some extent the same character, and the same basic archetype and plotline. There are a lot of games in a 'series' that are very different, hell anythin g that still is around from the old days has pretty much gone 3d. Look at the mario games for GameCube vs NES. I've been playing Metroid Prime lately and while the gameplay is vastly different, there are identifyable elements particular to the series.
Mario Crimespree.
Havent seen much word of reviews for the new GTA game on any major Gaming site, ill start the ball rolling with an amateur review by a young american with his own point of view.( http://www.dcemu.co.uk/vbulletin/showthread.php?t= 12929 )At least for the moment the pirates cant play the game and they have to have a v2.0 firmware PSP.
Debunked? Unfortunately something isn't "debunked" just because you say so, cocksucker. Here it is, chapter and verse:
...
...
2 Kings 2:24
And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
1 Samuel 15
2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
9 But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly.
19 Wherefore then didst thou not obey the voice of the LORD, but didst fly upon the spoil, and didst evil in the sight of the LORD?
It might have been easy to get away with your lying Christian shit before the internet - but you're fair game now.
2D = bad, 3D = good.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Well the bible does glorify pretty nasty stuff , if they are in the name of god that is.
:fuck all
1: The destruction of cities that don't do what they are told (Sodom and Gomorra )
2: Torturing someone to prove their faith (Jobe )
3: Murdering children ( Egypt)
4: Sending your son down to be executed , just to prove a point (Jebus)
5: Threatening anyone who doesn't follow the belief
And what comeuppance does god get for all this slaughter and abuse of peoples freedoms
That is perhaps just one way to look at the Bible . Hopefully you see my point
I love Rockstar for making these classics available for download, but I'd also like to see GTA London (expansion) available as well. They link to sites that sell used copies for the PS1, but they don't even have the PC version on their own webstore.
r o/index.html
http://www.rockstargames.com/gtalondon/public/int
Had it even mentioned Body Harvest (N64, 1998), which was also made by DMA Design, as a direct ancestor of the modern GTA games I would have been more impressed. Body Harvest might have been a different genre (sci-fi shooter), but it had a lot in common with GTA (large landscapes, loads of vehicles, wacky characters giving you missions, twisted humour) - and even a lot of the same flaws (clumsy main character, crappy targeting, instant death if you land in water)!
You must think in Russian.
Ha! He called that dude a cocksucker! But yeah, on many surfaces, the Bible doesn't encourage violent acts. However, if you look into it, there are so many terrible things that the Bible advocates.
Number one, if you're unconvinced that there is a God, or convinced that a religion contrary to Christianity is true, you're condemned to hell. The Bible tells you that the guy sending you there is good, merciful, loving, and all that. But the fact is, you cannot justify an infinite punishment for a finite crime. It's INFINITELY cruel and unjust (infinite because hell is for an eternity). You're supposed to disregard that, though, and believe that he's doing the right thing. That's some bullshit if I've ever smelled some.
And what about Canaan? "Yes, we shall vanquish them, for they believe it is true what we believe isn't true. Death to them all! The promised land is ours!" That's pretty damn glorified.
I think Job was already mentioned, but that's pretty fucked up through and through. The fact that God is essentially betting the devil that he won't crack is a pretty scary thought. The question arises, "Could God be not such a merciful and loving God after all?" It makes Constantine not seem entirely unrealistic (that is, if you believe the Bible is telling the truth).
I wonder if God will righteously smite San Fransisco since it's so gay. That'd be rad, wouldn't it? I mean, the Sodomites were wrong and terrible, not to mention faggity.
I guess God was a lot more demonstrative back when he flamboyantly parted the sea.
Only a matter of time till someone takes this and runs with it. I mean, christ, think how amazing it would be to play online against 5000+ other people trying to steal your car. Driving along, heading to do a mission, and BAM, your radio, pants, wristwatch, and anal virginity get stolen.
My first experience with the GTA series was renting the top-down version and thinking "this game sux", I promptly took it back to the blockbuster. When GTA III hit with the third person perspective I was willing to bive it a try and from the first meeting with the Leone family sluming for work I was hooked, even though the system of opening up the islands sux. Vice City was craaazy and added to the excitement of the franchise with Tommy doing his own thing was nothing like chasing them fools on that motorcycle or running from the cops with 5 stars trying to get to the ocean view then hard braking and sliding up onto the steps popping out onto the hood with police slamming into you trapped taking incoming til you could wiggle a space between the car to enter the door and feeling like whoah I made it. I still wished I was able to buy lots of clothes from Rafaels, pimp that club I brought more, and make really good porn flics. But hey, I was just a game right. Then Uber-Hyped SanAndreas hit the pipes and I gotta have it, the whole switching from Tommy/mafia to CJ/gangbanger thing some getting used to, and what was with that orange blurr heat wave effect. It looked for a few minutes like I was headed for gamers hell trying to take a g back I didn't want. Once I got pass the culture shock I was sucked into the modding cars (nitrous... how cool is that), rapid fire missions... come on who didnt just love the mission with smoke shooting from the back of the motorcycle being chased into the aqua ducts. Wow. The schools system was a blast and the selection of cars, boats, and bikes was awesome, not to mention my favorite talk radio station... nothing like going berzerk listening to talk radio. But for me, loading up on molotovs and rocket laucher shells, securing 5 stars baiting them back to CJs moms house, climbing atop the alleyway rooftop letting them have it til the tanks came was priceless. Though I did get a bit annoyed with the relentless dating, just for a few suits.
To quote Walter Neff, the evil hero in "Double Indemnity", "Do I laugh now, or wait 'til it gets funny?"
I won't tell you my age, but I agree, 1998 was a long time ago.
Just after playing the demo I was so amazed that I then searched it immediately on the net. I had Internet at home since 1 month at that time and 100 MB was huge at 4.5 kb/s. It was also costly, but GTA was not yet available in shops in France.
This is the last game I played on DOS, and I still launch it with nostalgy.
Microsoft Midtown Madness was a hit at that time and I was eargerly waiting for a 3D GTA. Midtown Madness was interesting, but not fun.
I had to wait for a long time, but DMA made my dreams become reality with GTA3.
I also bought Driv3r but, besides the technical problems (it is full of bugs), it doesn't have the same feeling. You're not so free as in GTA as the game is purely linear. And out of the main missions, you have nothing. Driving an ambulance or a taxi in San Andreas is the better way to discover the city and draw the map in your brain, and the Driv3r authors missed that.
"Come take a trip through time, and see how a franchise went from a cult hit to a cultural phenomenon, set the tone for an entire generation,..."
Are you kidding? Looks like the editor has lost the ground.
After all the GTA series is just a bunch of games. Very good ones, at least the 3D games. But there is no way these games a "cultural phenomenon, set the tone for an entire generation". Not for a generation of people, maybe for a generation of games. Depens on how you read it.
If you look at the culture portrayed in the games... Vice City is clearly 80s Miami Vice style and San Andreas uses all the gangsta stuff.
I had a 1200 baud modem. I'm more old-school. ;)
GTA will have nothing on Saint's Row.
Reference to Jack Thompson and friends; that qualifies for a "5 Funny" around here, right? Maybe too subtle... :P
Invisible to moderators.
Maybe I'm showing my age but I'm curious if anyone else feels the same way as I do. Always loved open games, bought the first 2D GTA and London pack, great stuff. Was late getting into PS2 - real life, dammit - but spent a hugely enjoyable couple of months playing through Vice City. I think a big part of the appeal is the cartoonish self-parody, the garish colours, the seaside locale, the consumerist excess (and yes, the music of *cough* my era).
Got San Andreas as a gift last year... hate it. Hate the constant smog/murk, hate the endless profane mumbling, hate the bloody gym, all that customisation crap, hate my homiez... the tedious done-to-death sub-Boyz'N'The Hood ghetto narrative is tiresome and predictable and I can't identify with CJ at all (is it cos I is white?) I find the missions less imaginative and somehow demeaning - pimping cars, spraying tags. There seems to be less graphical clarity somehow, and a hell of lot less humour... plenty of jokes, I grant you, but they're meaner, less exuberant.
Maybe it boils down to the fact that I prefer Goodfellas stereotypes to being a pool-playing gangbanger in a singlet. Am I alone?
I don't know about the last two games, but I know GTA3 has the helicopter (top-down) view. all ya gotta do is press Select and BAM! Helicopter view.
The GTA series of games, while undoubtly breaking the mold and being a stunning example of how games should be. Lets not forget that open ended games have come and gone before. What is GTA if not Elite with cars? ... Speaking of which - when is Braben going to make an announcement ( i hear they are recruiting again)
...
Nick
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
Sure, you're allowed to waste time goofing around between scripted missions. But "Look ma, I'm killin' cops!!" quickly becomes tiresome, and the game then becomes reload-and-replay just like every other mission-based game.
-----
Sorry, I'm only a 1336 h4x0r.
The thing that I enjoy most about GTA is modding the crap out of it to make my own customized playing experience. I've been changing/ downloading / creating my own cars since the first GTA and it's always fun to see your own favourite cars while driving around. That's what I didn't like about playing Vice City on my PS2 when it just came out. Well, the game was still brilliant and adding bikes was just the best thing since sliced bread. But the ability to mod/ replace cars and change stats and other tweakable settings is what made me a life-long fan of the series. I am glad that Rockstar never took that away from us. I've played and enjoyed every single version , but GTA2 didn't really do it for me. The latest GTA's are just absolutely amazing. And if I can drive around in a Gallardo or Ferrari 360 while killing people, then why not?
It's not reality, it's an escape. And a wonderful way to relax.
Oh, yes. That brings me back to my second point:
I am 30 years old. I live a stressfull life with a very demanding career. For me, playing GTA is one of the best ways to relax and get rid of frustration. I know some people complain about the violence and camera views and aiming etc... But you get to immerse yourself in a completely different world away from your reality and environment. I must say that there's been the odd occasion where I was driving in my neighborhood and almost knocked a delivery guy from his faggio just because I'm so used to doing it for fun in GTA. BTW: it's 10x better when you play it on a big projected screen!!! Try it.
"I used to have that really cool,funny sig
Lets face it GTA is:
- A mediocre shooter/beatem up
- A mediocre car/bike game
- A mediocre story
- Ok it has a massive world to explore
But at the end of the day it is no more than mediocre at everything it tries to do. Every aspect of GTA is done soo much better in other games.
And I couldn't help thinking while playing San Andreas that the graphics engine is looking very playstation and that is with a 6800GT with all vid settings maxed out.
For a game that excels at being mediocre, why so popular??? *shrugs shoulders*
Let me ask you this: Do you actually want to know the answers to your rantings, or are you just looking to fight? The difference does matter. If it's the former, then we're it's a discussion, albeit offtopic. If it's the latter, then you're just trolling and should be ignored.
By the fact that you can do no better than insult others, I have a feeling that it's the latter rather than the former. Which would prove the AC correct, your theology is based on some foaming at the mouth, anti-christian questionnaire. I was there when people here first starting using that nonsense as an argument here on Slashdot, and I did help debunk it. Thoroughly. So if you're *really* curious, I can explain. Otherwise, expect to be ignored.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Carl Johnson is without question the most charismatic and entertaining character of the PS2 trilogy, which makes the story even better.
This line took me a little bit by suprise. I liked CJ, but it is hard to beat Ray Liotta doing a voice. I didn't realize that one could make CJ so fat. My character is pretty damn buff- maybe I will fatten him up a bit.
1: The destruction of cities that don't do what they are told (Sodom and Gomorra )
Never mind that you just sugarcoated a bunch of rapists and murderers. 10 good people was all that Abram had to find to spare the cities. He didn't even find one.
2: Torturing someone to prove their faith (Jobe)
You think poverty is torture? Warp things much?
3: Murdering children (Egypt)
As opposed to those friendly Egyptians who couldn't have possibly murdered every newborn Jewish boy in cold blood as a method of population control. (The Egyptians and the Jews had been *friends* up to that point. Talk about betrayal) Not to mention the variety of plauges and warnings sent prior to the infant deaths as a warning to release the Jewish people from this slaughter.
4: Sending your son down to be executed , just to prove a point (Je[s]us)
Oh, well excuse him for voluntarily accepting punishment for your sins. Hello? McFly?! Under the law you're supposed to go to hell for your sins. Now if you believe that God did such a thing as send his Son to the chopping block, then you should also believe that he did it so that all people who wish to do so can go to heaven. i.e. Note that the New Testament states, "Whosoever believeth in me shall have eternal life." It doesn't say you have to be perfect, nor does it say that you have to balance your life with good to offet the bad you've done. It just says that you have to believe in Jesus and thus by extension, want to go to heaven.
Besides, HE AROSE FROM THE DEAD! (Break into song and dance here.)
5: Threatening anyone who doesn't follow the belief
Um, yeah. That's the most vague statement you've made yet. What is it with you trolls? Don't connect with reality much, do you?
Let me throw something else back at you. "The Allied Powers killed millions of Germans in WWII." Those EVIL people! What kind of asshole would ever support such thugs and murders! </sarcasm>
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I seem to recall a few obscure games from a company called Maxis! Sheesh, GTA3 is great, but they hardly invented or popularized the open-ended game.
Hmmm... Maxis created obscure games... therefore GTA3 could not have popularized the genre.
Seems like a big flaw in your logic to me.
Incidently for those that may have missed the 'original' series. Rockstar released updated versions (support for recent hardware) of 1&2 some time ago as free downloads. Enjoy!
God should be held accountable for these acts .
So what you are saying is that this makes it OK to murder innocent children . premeditated slaughter of countless children , who under gods laws at the time would be destined to spend eternity in Sheol .
Come on!
Books are not the pinnacle of intellectual achievement some people say. In fact, they are just like TV: some PBS (well, Shakespeare is on PBS), some "reality" TV (any star autobiography), and even some Shopping TV (Montignac weight-loss).
The only difference between the two is that you get to enjoy a book on your terms: it's open when you open it, and you don't get reruns if you did not like it.
Conclusion: books are not more productive than TV.
But I think you have a point with the board games. (Axis and Allies!!!)
You're not old until regret takes the place of your dreams.
There are really only two interpretations here: Either you don't believe in God - in which case the deaths were most likey caused by disease and merely attributed to a mythical figure - or, you do believe in God in which case you should be looking to understand his actions, not judging them. After all, you didn't create the entire Universe, nor did you send your Son to die a painful death so that others may reach heaven.
Two rights don't make a wrong.
Well, that's good to know. I'd hate to think that spreading good deads would lead to crime.
who under gods laws at the time would be destined to spend eternity in Sheol
I'm sorry, were these children guilty of something that would warrant their banishment to Sheol? The sins of the fathers (talked about extensively in the Old Testament) may have been the cause for their worldly death, but they hardly reached an age to make their own decisions. Even if we assume that they were still deserving of eternal condemnation, I would like to point you to the following part of Peter:
What that means (if you'll forgive the KJV translation, it's a bit confusing in modern English) is that Jesus spent time preaching to all those who deserved hell under the law, but were now given the opportunity for grace.
So what you are saying is that this makes it OK to murder innocent children . premeditated slaughter of countless children
You really don't understand how the law worked in those times, do you? Well, I won't bore you with a 10,000 word theological lesson that I doubt you'd read anyway. Suffice it to say, that the concepts of innocence we think of today came through the grace of Jesus Christ. (Or Emmanuel if you prefer.) The law was extremely strict in passing shame until atonement could be produced. (I'd invite you to read the part of Genesis where God nearly killed Moses. His wife circumcised their son and in throwing the foreskin at Moses feet yelled, "What a bloody husband have I!") Under grace, however, no one deserves to die. Especially not children. And if you can't see the love in changing the law to grace, well, I'm afraid that there's nothing I can do to change your mind.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
But the fact is, you cannot justify an infinite punishment for a finite crime. It's INFINITELY cruel and unjust (infinite because hell is for an eternity).
:-)
You're right. And the Bible agrees with you. Under the Old Testament, the law stated you should received eternal damnation. However, the New Testament said, "Whosoever believeth in Me (Jesus) shall have ever lasting life." Then Jesus went and preached to those who had died before he came and gave them a chance. Now the only question is, when Judgement Day comes do you chose Jesus or not? That's the only critera for getting to heaven. Or as the Brother Jesse Duplantis likes to say, "You'd be amazed at the people you'll meet in heaven!"
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
So what makes this game revolutionary? I read through the story and there's something about open-ended play and the usual stuff about graphics, customizable avatars, game activities can change the appearance and capabilities of your avatar, and of course, the sex and violence thing. This author either is pretty limited in experience or just ignoring the past, but there's decades of history of cool games with open-ended play, and you can find games with some mix of the other features which predate GTA's introduction of said feature.
WTF ever happened to gouranga? You know where you ran over a line of hari krishna's and if you got all of them you got a gouranga?
Can anyone point me towards a good open-ended rpg game?
They may be a bit dated, but Fallout 1 and 2 still beat most other games in open endedness. Heck... You can be good, bad, or even ugly (mutant!)
Fallout 2 can sink 100 hours of your time and you may have not done anything... And technically you can beat the game in 10 minutes if you by pass all of that.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
I already addressed your "point" here. I have to say that it's rather disturbing that so many people can equate containing certain themes to glorifying those same themes.
Bullshit. There are plenty of examples of outright glorification of violence in the old testament. For example Psalms 137:8-9:
The person who kills the children(!) of Babylon shall be happy. If that isn't glorification of violence, I don't know what is.
I loved the origional GTA game... I remeber getting it on the pc when it first came out, then GTA2 came out and I was hooked to it... Problem is I don't really like the new games... maybe it's because I'm a retro fiend and liked the cool "top down" view.
Schrodinger's cat- A cat is put in a sealed box. Attached to which is a radioactive nucleus and a canister of poison gas
What a perfect example of taking things out of context!
;-)
*taps pointer on desk*
Pay attention class, because you are about to learn the importance of understanding context.
The verse that k98sven has chosen certainly sounds horrible. Why would God wish such a thing for the very people he created? The answer is that he doesn't, and the verse is not intended to be interpreted that way. The song (and it is a song) is the Jewish captives lamenting their imprisionment by their Babylonian captives. They are extremely angry over their treatment, and are wishing for the complete destruction of the Babylonians, which means their entire lineage. They want the Babylonians wiped off the face of the Earth for what they had done.
This page goes into some detail about songs such as this, explaining that the Bible makes us privy to many private conversations and feelings that the anscestors of Jesus felt. (Make no mistake, the primary purpose of the Bible is to document the lineage of Jesus Christ.) But just because these people felt this way doesn't make it the word of God when taken out of context.
For example, 2nd Samuel Chapter 13 describes Amnon's act of raping his half-sister. Does that make it God's word to rape your half-sister? HELL NO! In context one would understand that David was very angry about his son's deeds, because it was wrong. This spurned his other son to kill Amnon. But then he had to flee because he also had done something horrible, even if it was for the right reasons. (I'll stop here because the analysis would get extremely long and end up going all the way back to the events with Bathsheba.)
This comes back to my point about literature being extremely complex and allowing for an analysis of humanity. Video games in their current incarnation don't do that. They simply glorify one thing or another.
But if such private moments and complexities are too difficult for you to deal with, you may want to avoid the book of the Bible entitled "Solomon's Song". Such sexual innuendo as comparing his lover's breasts to a pair of fawns or her husband to a stag on a mountain is not for the faint of heart!
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
s/spurned/spurred/g
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
$%@#$! :-/
s/Babylonian captives/Babylonian captors/g
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
That's still a load of nonsense.
You're just saying "The Bible isn't condoning violence, it's the people in the Bible who are condoning violence".
That argument is worthless, because you can used for video games, movies, books and anything else. It's not the movie that condones violence. It's the characters in it!
By that rationale, nothing condones violence.
Kind and loving god my arse.
Christianaty and most other religions say its okay for god to sentence people who don't agree with him or blindly accept him to burn for eternity.
That's exactly the mentallity that causes people to fly plains into buildings.
Murder and torture are not okay. Ever. Even you are a supreme being, and created the universe.
You christians keep B.S.ing about how your religion is about love, and loving your neighbor. Those liberal teachings of Jesus are great. But the conservative B.S. especially Paul's teachings, are just plain wrong. The entire context is either, god's way, or an eternity of torture. That second part kind of invalidate the first part.
Once again Murder and Torture are not okay. Ever.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
You're just saying "The Bible isn't condoning violence, it's the people in the Bible who are condoning violence".
Actually, I'm saying nothing of the sort. I'm saying that the example you gave is an example of someone venting their frustrations. Have you ever gotten angry at a sibling or friend and yelled, "If I catch you, I'm gonna kill you?" Were you really going to kill them? Perhaps you felt like smashing a few kneecaps, but did you do so?
That argument is worthless, because you can used for video games, movies, books and anything else. It's not the movie that condones violence. It's the characters in it!
Really? So let's interpret classic literature, shall we? According to your logic, the "Scarlet Letter" promotes both wedlock and cruel and unusual punishments, Robin Hood promtes oppression of the people and extreme taxation, the House of Seven Gables promotes cheating old men out of their lifetime homes, Hamlet promotes sucide, and To Kill a Mockingbird promotes domestic violence and rape. Is that the point you're attempting to make? Because that is where your logic leads.
The problem is that you're confusing literary devices with the real world. Protagonism and Antagonism (the so-called good-guys and bad-guys) are devices used by an author to help the reader understand the situation without going into long histories that explain how everyone ended up in their current position. You have the good guy on one side (who usually can do no wrong) and the bad guy on the other (who usually does nothing *but* wrong). They duke it out, and you root for the good guy the whole time.
Unfortunately, life doesn't always work that way. We're talking about a book that documents 3000-4000 years of very real history. Just because a few jews in captivity wanted to see the Babylonians burn doesn't mean that all their decendents do. I'm sure quite a few Americans wanted to see Russia nuked at one point, but wouldn't dream of it in this day in age. The point is that the events happened, and denying them does nothing but harm everyone. For example, Peter could have helpfully ommitted his cowardice in the face of Jesus' death (i.e. You shall deny me three times) when he wrote his book of the Bible. He didn't. Why do you think that is?
But if you really can't handle the complexities of real life as presented in book form, then may I suggest that you either improve yourself by attending a few Literary classes? Otherwise you might want to stick to the pre-chewed versions.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
The entire context is either, god's way, or an eternity of torture.
So your opinion is that God should take away people's free will, and force them to live with him forever in heaven? Any person who wants to get to heaven can do so just by accepting Christ. You can't buy your way there, nor can you ever be good enough to get there. But you can get there by just wanting to be there. Every person has that choice. But every person has another option. If they really don't want to be with God for eternity, they can choose the pit. Now you'll be sharing it with a few ex-Angels who got kicked out of heaven and hate your guts because you're more important than they are, but hey? What's a little hatred in a place of exile?
Or is your point that God should create a place where those who don't want to live in heaven can stay for eternity performing whatever acts they feel like? A place that isn't hell that is. And God should protect this place against those same ex-angels from getting there to torment you. Despite the fact that you just told him you want nothing to do with him?
I'm sorry, what was your point again?
But the conservative B.S. especially Paul's teachings, are just plain wrong.
You're going to have to be more concrete than that. What exactly is your problem with Paul? Perhaps it was the whole celibacy thing? "But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn" --1 Corinthians 7:9
Once again Murder and Torture are not okay. Ever.
Interesting. So war is not okay? Ever? Should you accept death rather than take up arms against an attacker? It's okay for someone else to kill you, but if you kill them to prevent your own death, you are in the wrong? Should David had not killed Goliath? Perhaps the United States shouldn't have defended itself against Japan? The world would be a much better place now, right?
You think it's not okay that God (who I will remind you was the very one who gave the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" to the Jews) to be the Judge of what is right and just? I would remind you that God states "Revenge is mine." Or in other words, it is not the place of Christians to decide who lives and who dies, regardless of your problems with actions taken by a power higher than us.
I also would remind you that no man lifted a single hand against the Egyptian children. So in saying that Christianity is about promoting murder and torture, you are in effect saying that you believe that it was perfectly okay that the Egyptians took the lives of Jewish children, but it was not okay when Egyptian children died from no fault of ANY Jew present at the event?
You must be very wise to accuse innocent people of murder and torture.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Actually, I'm saying nothing of the sort. I'm saying that the example you gave is an example of someone venting their frustrations. Have you ever gotten angry at a sibling or friend and yelled, "If I catch you, I'm gonna kill you?" Were you really going to kill them? Perhaps you felt like smashing a few kneecaps, but did you do so?
Talk about context. You're completely ignoring the fact that the israelites did kill Babylonians. There is no reason to believe what they were saying was not meant literally.
The rest of your post is a straw-man. You're bashing arguments that I did not make, and then you (for the second time) imply that I'm stupid or illiterate because I disagree with you.
That says a lot more about your character than about my intelligence.
How does that change anything? Doesn't it just change the finite crime from "sinning" to "not believing in Jesus"? And if you do it, you still get the infinite punishment. How does changing the definition of the crime make the punishment any more just?
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
Here's a site with some info on all the rampages for GTA3: targets are either random cars or specific gangs. Note that no rampage mission will credit a non-gang pedestrian kill.
Initially there may be other pedestrians in the vicinity when starting a rampage, but all newly spawned pedestrian NPCs are always of the target group - this makes it appear that any pedestrian can be targetted. The exceptions to this are law enforcement (try with a Wanted rating above 2 before accepting the mission) and medical, but you'll see that wasting these personnel will not assist in the mission.
I haven't played VC or SA, but the rules appear to be the same there too.
Either way, no rampage mission in GTA3 will credit a non-gang pedestrian kill.
nmb3000 (741169) was correct.
This is not my sig.
You're completely ignoring the fact that the israelites did kill Babylonians.
That's usually what happens in a war. (Remember, these are *captives*. They're not just visiting to say, "Hello, I want to bash the skull of your kid in.") That hardly means that the Iraelites went around smashing babies against rocks. (Your original complaint.) As I said, I'm sure quite a few people would have liked to nuke Russia during the Cold War. Didn't mean that they did.
And for the record, the Iraelites did not manage to resist the onslaught of the Babylonians conquerors. Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the temple, enslaved the Jewish people, and generally conquered and pillaged. Their reign over the land of Israel lead to the eventual rule by the Greeks, then the Romans, and eventually the final dissolution of Israel under the Arabs.
But you know what? The Jewish people eventually stopped trying to kill the Babylonians out of spite, and started trying to work with them. A lot of them were killed because they wouldn't bow to Babylonian gods, but their God eventually proved his superiority to their golden idols. (e.g. Shadrak, Meshak and Abednego, not to mention Daniel in the Lion's Den.) According to the Bible, Nebuchadnezzar himself became a believer in the power of the God of Israel.
You're bashing arguments that I did not make
You didn't make the argument that a single line about killing entire lines of people means that the Bible is promoting senseless violence? You certainly didn't offer any other evidence for your statement: "There are plenty of examples of outright glorification of violence in the old testament." When I debunked it, all you had to say was, "By that rationale, nothing condones violence." So we followed through on your logic, and found that all the classics are about glorifying horrible deads.
No, wait. They're about how people handle unfortunate situations, aren't they? It isn't always pretty, but it's not the same thing as glorifying violence.
imply that I'm stupid or illiterate because I disagree with you.
Your argument is certainly either stupid or based on a poor understanding of literature. What did you expect the Iraelites to think of a foreign invader? "Oh, hello. Glad you dropped by to rape, pillage, and subjugate?" Yet because the Iraeli people were hopping mad over getting conquered, you think that the Bible is about glorifying violence? That's an extremely poor excuse for logic.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
You still get the infinite punishment. How does changing the definition of the crime make the punishment any more just?
Whoa. Time out here. You seem to be of the opinion that not reaching heaven is a punishment for all the horrible deads you committed while you were alive. While that was certainly true under the law (and I'm afraid has been presented that way by many preachers), it's not the case any more. Now you can freely enter heaven. You don't have to do anything other than say, "Yes, I believe that Jesus died for my sins so that I might enter heaven."
Or to put it another way, if you're stuck out in the cold and a guy invites you into to his warm house (make no mistake, heaven is God's home) wouldn't you come in? I would hope that most people would. But let's say for a moment that you hate the guy's guts. Now you have to make a decision between coming into the home of someone you hate or staying out in the cold. To make things even worse, there are gangs of thugs running around outside, beating up anyone who's out after dark. But you REALLY hate the guy's guts. What do you do?
That's the choice you're faced with. Think of being out in the cold as a punishment if you wish, but the truth is that you just hate the guy's guts and can't see past that for long enough to realize that the guy actually cares about you and wants to share his home to keep you safe and comfortable.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
The contradictions you have made issustrate the point. The whole concept is pointless and idotic. You say every person has that choice. The very act of creating a path where its either my way or burn is evil. It doesn't matter how what lables you create or attach to the being who creates it. The whole concept is B.S. there's doesn't have to be a pit. There don't have to be angels that hate us because we're more important. Its a sham. the diety can put the dead anyplace appropriate. That's why the Catholics invented Purgatory. They realized that the entire hevan/hell issue was a sham.
Christians speak of God as being all powerful, all knowing. According to this belief God can do anything beyond our human imagination. There is no reason for there to be only hevan and hell.
War is wrong. Sometimes whe have to defend ourselves. That still does not make War good.
Many practicioners of Islam see themselves at war against the infidels. Islamic Jyhad? War is wrong. Sometimes people have to take up arms to defend themselves. But that's still not a good thing. Somebody else who doesn't share those same ideals may take up arms for exactly the same reasons.
You've hit the nail on the head.
How about Corinthians 1 11:3-9 ?
You christinas are stuck with garbage like that.
I never said what the Egyptians did was okay. I say the Egyptians was wrong, I also say the murder of children is wrong.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
My rantings??
I just posted two bible verses.... lol.
I'm a little surprised that qualifies as "ranting" for you -- but then I guess we all knew you were kidding yourself with your "bible doesn't glorify evil acts" bullshit.
Sorry for taking so long to respond. I often don't get a chance to check Slashdot on the weekend.
;-)
You say every person has that choice. The very act of creating a path where its either my way or burn is evil. It doesn't matter how what lables you create or attach to the being who creates it.
You do realize that a Paradise that wasn't God's home did exist at one time, right? The Garden of Eden that the Bible speaks of was supposed to be an eternal home for Adam and Eve. His only requirement in giving this home was, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Well, we all know how that ended, don't we?
So, now we die. When we die, our soul is loosed from this Earth. I don't entirely understand the difference between Sheol and Hell, but the two places do seem to be different. Sheol seems to be an "eternal slumber", or a ceasation of existence. This would be as per the convenent given to Adam and Eve. As the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve, we could theoretically chose this. But we instead tend to sell ourselves to the devil's temptations and thus must be sentenced to the same punishment as him. As an alternative, God opened the doors of His home for us. He sent his Son to pay the price of our sins so that we may join him.
In other words, there is the possibility of a death without God or the devil, but this is pretty much impossible for humans to achieve. Given the choice, we always give in to sinful temptations.
How about Corinthians 1 11:3-9 ?
This is a really difficult verse, as the full context has been long been lost to us. Literally it would seem that Paul is suggesting that women should cover their heads in service so that they may revel in their womanhood. i.e. Long hair is a glory to a woman, so should be her head covering. One way or another, it referred to only the mode of worship, and not of day to day life.
We obviously don't use head coverings as the chosen form of symbology in today's culture. Rather, women usually wear an attractive dress and men try to wear an attractive suit and tie. You could reverse the two, but they'd seem kind of disrespectful to the church proceedings. (As was Paul's point.)
As for the woman "being of the man", here is what I personally read from that. His point is that woman was created to be a companion to man and was given the gift of bearing children. That is her glory and honor to do so. It is not a requirement for her (the whole "subjegation" idea is simply wrong; women have a free will as well), but simply a matter of being true to one's self. He is certainly not saying, "women are second class citizens of the world." He is saying that women do honor to themselves by using symbology to represent the fact that they are women. Or in other words, it's a pure and wonderful thing if women act feminine.
So from that, is it "wrong" if a woman wants to act manly? Well, no. There's no, "thou shalt never act masculine" anywhere in the Bible. Woman are free to make their own choices.
There's a rather pleasent right up on the entire thing here. It's written by a woman, so you may find the interpretation to be of interest.
In my own life, I have always treated my wife with full respect, and I see her as an equal in our relationship. I have never pushed the idea of "being the head of the family" despite the fact that it often works that way. (We recently ribbed our lawyer about all of the legal documents having my name before hers. I think his heart skipped a beat before he realized we were kidding him, and that the issue really didn't matter to us.) My wife and I are "of one flesh" and are equals in our relationship. And I'm sure my wife would be along to kick your butt if you suggest otherwise.
God could have easily struck the Pharoh dead with a bolt of lignten
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
So that would be a "no" then? Just want to be clear here.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
My point was, the crime becomes not believing in Jesus, rather than your sins. It's still finite, and the punishment is still infinite. You could certainly argue that it's become much, much easier to not commit the crime (I heard a sermon this Sunday that was basically all about how much easier Lutherans have it than Catholics and Jews), but finite crime = infinite punishment still stands, and still seems unfair.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.