openeyes

For what it's worth, my 15 yo has argued that since everyone is bad in the game, it teaches you how NOT to be. Hmmmm.

Are the only women in the game prostitutes?

LordSnooty asks of me:
As I said, I still allow the older one to play. If I start seeing behavior that is questionable that may be due to the game, that'll be the end of it. The problem is, despite the popularity of these games, the effects on an individual and society in general are difficult to measure. So what if my son can handle the game without ill effects, but his friend who played at my house can't? Also, if the effect is measurable, is it too late? How do we determine the subtle influences of various factors which may be cumulative when trying to figure out life's problems, especially concerning relationships?

Thanks to Sakpo for the detailed explanation of the game. It's difficult to know exactly what's going on without playing for yourself, but if it's one of the last things you'd like to do with your time, you're not likely to gain familiarity.

LordSnooty

I'm 23.

Paul

LordSnooty

Good GOD, no! That really would be pushing it.
I don't see how it could have any influence on someone to be honest.

Let me put it this way: do you think a computer game could warp your mind and make you emotionally sterile, or mentally stunted? I doubt it.

You ought to try playing the game. I'm sure it'd go some way to easing your fears. Before she saw the game properly, my sister (21) said that it was a disgrace that such a title could be even be made, let alone published.

But she soon got interested when she saw me playing it. Within ten minutes she was shouting her encouragement as I went through a challenge to machine-gun as many gang members as possible in a set time. But I'm fairly sure that my sister has not been driven insane by the comical violence she both witnessed and encouraged.

It's not real - it's not even similar to reality. It's just a fun title which allows you the freedom to do what you want. I see no real capacity for it to interfere with the development of a child, unless said child already had serious mental problems.

Seriously. Give it a go. My money says you'll soon be firing on police cars, running down innocent pedestrians, and loving every minute of it.

Paul

Oxymoron

That doesn't mean that it doesn't have an influence. Do you have kids? Concerned about influences on them beyond your control? If you had, you would be. Have you studied developmental psychology? Do you have the first clue what the game is actually doing to your mind? The defence of 'nothing, I can handle it' just doesn't wash because if it did nothing then you simply wouldn't play it, or enjoy it any more than any other game, or mowing the lawn.

Anyway, all that libertarian bleating is just hot air. The real appeal of the game is that you can do sick shit with little or no comeback. People who are not interested in Doing Sick Shit get concerned when others around them not only want to do it, but try to make a virtue out of it.

LordSnooty

No, but I was one once.
Yes, but not on an academic level.
I play it because: It's a huge environment, reasonably realistic as games go, gives you a lot of freedom, and has entertaining missions. And yes, occasionally I like to stand in front of a crowd of civilians, blow them all away, and steal their money.
Your definition of 'sick shit' differs from mine. Sick shit happens in the real world, not in the make-believe world of computer generated images.

I'm probably just as moral as you are, and to be honest there's no real need for you to get funny about it. I don't think anyone else has.

You come out with this stuff, but as yet you haven't backed it up. You're making the extraordinary claim. So let's see the evidence that computer games can warp normal children.

Next you'll be telling us that Tom & Jerry cartoons make kids want to kill each other, or that The Simpsons turns children yellow.

Paul

Oxymoron

Gee, really? Me too!

And that's the case for the defence, m'lud?

On the software technology front, I agree it's fairly slick (though I get fed up of the time it takes to re-start a mission from the hospital or police station).

And yes, occasionally I like to stand in front of a crowd of civilians, blow them all away, and steal their money.

Compared to other video games, it's sick, that's why people bought many thousands of copies of GTA/GTAVC/The Getaway this Xmas. That's what the market research says anyway (I work for a games developer so I get access to that sort of guff).
It's pretty realistic - the enemies are more than recognisably human (it used to be robots or vampires or zombies); the blood is red (not green or white). GTA:VC is closer to depicting the killing of real humans than just about any other game I know.

Yeah, I apologise, I got overly personal back there.

The jury is out as to whether games in general do harm, and therefore certainly on whether specific games can cause problems. However, just supposing a definitive piece of research came out tomorrow that said categorically there was a substantial link between games and violence. The genie is out the bottle and pumping lead, the damage may already be done.

Being an atheist, I consider it is the theist's duty to demonmstrate the correctness of their beliefs, not mine to disprove them (which in the limit I may not be able to do). In this discussion, I suggest that there may be a similar case for developers of games with dubious content to prove that they do not cause harm.

Oh p-lease. Context! Context is everything. The second-last thing I want is to live in a padded-cell world full of blandness where nobody challenges nothing and we pretend the world is a cuddly place full of fluffy bunnies and kittens. The last thing I want is to live in a world where folk have forgotten there's such a thing as context.

LordSnooty

OK, granted. But I don't see why that's bad. My friends love that aspect of GTA3, and I can tell you that they're all decent, law abiding people. So clearly, there does not need to be any real connection between a desire to carry out horrifying acts of violence on a make-believe world, and behaviour in the real one.
Fair enough, but the characters are still rather silly and off the wall. They're caricatures, and although they can be killed, the killing itself is rather laughable.

For instance, if you fire into a crowd, you might have one person staggering around without a head. You might have several people hop around on one foot because their other leg has been shot off. It's silly and darkly comic. It's not as though they scream in agony and lie writhing on the floor for ages before dying. Even James Bond movies have violence that is far more shocking.

Come to think of it, some might argue it'd be better if it did show genuine suffering. The whole actions and consequences thing could serve as a deterrant. But anyway...
No problem, I've done it plenty of times.
But didn't people say this about Doom, and Quake, and Carmageddon?
But surely that's the point. GTA is not a serious game. It's a comic game above all else. The voice acting, the animation, the characters - all are geared towards a dark comic feel. It's a black comedy. It's not supposed to be a serious insight into the world of gangsters.

Paul

August Spies

Exactly what is 'cool' or 'funny' about it? If we find it cool or funny, can't that be anything other than desensitisation?

perhaps but there is absolutly no reason to single out GTA. Virtually everygame except sports games are based around killing and violence.

c'est la vie.

Barney Gumble

I would dearly like to see how this "research" was obtained. The phrasing of the questions, the age of the respondents, the amount of participation. Assuming questions to the individual purchasers was even done, of course.

Although I'm not a huge fan of the game myself, the majority of positive reviews it's received from professional and amateur reviewers that I've seen compliment many facets of the game. The wide-open nature of the gameplay where almost anything is possible was a welcome refresh to an industry in which the player is routinely led by the hand to their objective. The soundtracks are brilliant (the commentary of the music stations, along with the talk radio are some of the first humour in a PC/console game that's actually made me laugh out loud). The driving physics provide a great deal of fun as well.

Yes, the extreme violence is a part of GTA3, but it's also a game that demonstrated a world that is quite rare in console titles (to a lesser extent, PC fare). Open-ended gameplay is the "thing" right now, and GTA3 was able to bring it to the masses, along with a somewhat interesting plotline if you chose to follow it. What I hear routinely when people wane on about how much they love this game, is just what they're amazed they can do. Not simply because "they can get away with it" in a moral sense, but simply because the engine of the game actually allows them to create their own path of entertainment, instead of "Get key...go here...insert key...read text for next objective...". Bored with the missions presented for you? Grab a firetruck, put out some fires. Steal a cop car, become a vigilante. Or just tear around the streets causing mayhem, which I�m sure is a fantasy for all of us after being stuck in gridlock. That kind of freedom in any game is exceptionally rare. Many of these side-quests used to be sold as complete games themselves.

The argument that the buying public accepts the game simply for the wanton violence is highly questionable in the face of other titles which bombed due to the fact they simply weren't good games. What about State of Emergency? It's a killing free-for-all that makes GTA3 resemble Mario World. Bad reviews, bad sales - because that's _all_ you could do, walk into a metropolitan area and let loose. What about "P.O.S.T.A.L", another controversial game for the PC released years back that had you portrayed as a maniacal postal worker who shot up the local neighborhood? Again, a bomb, as it was a poor game and the violence was the only selling point. Products based solely on shock value tend to wear out their welcome quite rapidly.

Uh, it did? Please, never check out the Soldier of Fortune series on the PC. If you think GTA3 is "realistic" (I find its depiction to be over-the-top cartoonish myself), then you will likely vomit profusely at the site of SOF�s dismemberment graphics.

You say you work for a game developer and GTA:VC is closer to depicting the killing or real humans than just about any other game you know? You must be new to this industry.

And you actually believe the replacement of red blood with white/green would actually elevate GTA3 to a higher moral plane?

Monkeybot

Well, I'm a pretty big fan of GTA3 and VC, but I have to admit the prostitute scenario makes me pretty uncomfortable. Even above and beyond the violence and total amorality of the game, there's something especially awful to me about killing a hooker after you have sex with her. I can't explain why, but it does bother me.

So, I have a very simple solution... I choose not to do it.

I don't have to have sex with a hooker, ever, in the game. Even if I choose to do so, I am not forced to kill her. I can easily let her walk away with my money.

To further complicate thigns, there is also a cheat code which allows you to turn into different characters. I enjoy being the prostitute (among other characters!). There's something that's just really funny to me about doing drivebys in a bikini top, skirt, and high heels. Would this be considered empowering the prostitutes?

Honestly all this talk of desensitization - I don't really see it, or I don't think it's as insidious as is being claimed. I mean what is the point of Super Mario, but to basically kill everything that comes your way. I don't see anyone complaining about people being desensitized to violence against turtles. In Civilization the point is to conquer the world -- but I think we are all pretty realistic about our chances of becoming Napoleon in the future. I see the "people" in GTA about the same way I see the Koopas in Super Mario, or the English in Civilization - video game characters. Maybe that sounds callous, but the issue of confusing real life people with little chunks of data in a video game is... well, it's a non-issue, for me personally.

In some ways I think GTA is one of those games where either you like it or you hate it. I like it because of the reasons Acinom mentioned -- violence and such aside, it's a wonderful exploring game. I mean, the designers put so much work in, there are little nooks and crannies and secret rewards everywhere in the game. There are usually weird little side games (like the beach ball in VC or the Toyz car in GTA), ramps, insane stunts, vigilante missions, rampages, tanks, flying helicopters, etc. I mean when the hell, in real life, am I going to be able to steal a car and get away with it? When will I ever be able to go on a vigilante mission in a cop car? I will probably never touch a rocket launcher or a sniper rifle in my life. To me these things are as far removed as having cannons and phalanxes and nuclear missiles at my disposal in Civilization. It's the total freedom you have in the game, to do these totally insane crazy-ass things you would never EVER be able to do in real life that makes it so appealing, IMO. And that freedom also includes things that you and I may not be comfortable with -- but we also have the freedom to choose not to do some of these things.