$246 million lawsuit against makers of GTA3!

[Snotty]

so what is its basic premise?

You play the character of a gangster. You perform missions to forward the plot. This missions consist of gangster like activities (think car chases, collecting protection money etc). A number of these missions involve killing other gangsters and the like. The emphasis is on action, the plot is merely a device for giving reason to your actions. You do not have to take part in the missions if you do not want to, and can instead travel around they city, you can go where-ever you like.

All this takes place against the backdrop of a living, breathing city. Shops, pedestrians and traffic. You have the freedom to interact with everything in the city, and this includes shooting them and running them over if you wish. You dont have to hurt innocent people, and if you do the police are called and they try to arrest you. Also when people are killed, an ambulance will be called and the paramedics will instantly revive anyone they find.

Having the police chase you is a 'punishment' for hurting innocents. It makes it more difficult for you to complete your missions. One enjoyable aspect of the game is trying to evade arrest as long as possible, and can be quite action packed.

Overall, the game is about freedom to do what you like in a city. You can be evil, but the game does not force you to be.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


I got no problems if somebody makes a game about hacking some old ladys computer files - beating and killing is something different. Id like to see a game about beating and killing FPS developers. And im not curious whether it would be popular - im curious whether developers would feel good about making and releasing it. When theyve released such a game, they can laugh at people who are offended by their products.

Actually, developers have modeled themselves as 'easter eggs' in games before, giving the player a chance to mutilate and kill them countless ways.

And you don't hack into old ladies computers in Uplink, you hack into buisnesses. There's a few gaming companies represented in there aswell, if I remember correctly, and I'm sure that's as bad as death to some of those programmers.

well actually nationalism IS useful and wholesome

Yeah, it's wonderful. Just ask hitler, look what it let him do.

And no genocide in Civ2.

You can starve cities and disband them.

and i play Civ to build a civilization, not to go around nuking people. Thats NOT the point of the game. People who think it is are just lame. War is part of the game, as its part of history.

Just think of Civilization as an indoctrination to patriarchy, and all those wonderful things that divide people and is the cause of endless hate and killing. That's what bringing a stone age tribe to the nuclear age is all about, afterall.

[Snotty]

Yup, i should say not. Making games or mods about killing postal workers, old ladies etc - thats just KEWL - making a game about killing game designers, or mod designers for that matter, now THAT would be totally unkewl - to a game designer or mod designer at least.

It not its lack of 'kewl'ness, its the fact that it simply wouldnt be that interesting. Going on a killing rampage in an office would get dull, fast.

[Snotty]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Yet all evidence Im aware of indicates that viewing sex is far less damaging than exposure to simulated violence.

Dont make sense to me.

Kids can tell the difference between whats real and simulated. They also know violence is wrong, and they shouldnt do it.

Sex, however, is not something they should be taught is wrong. So they may be more likely to experiment. If I had a kid, I would rather their innocence lasted a little longer.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Osweld


Actually, developers have modeled themselves as 'easter eggs' in games before, giving the player a chance to mutilate and kill them countless ways.

Well, learn something new every day.

Yeah, it's wonderful. Just ask hitler, look what it let him do.

Hitler wasnt a nationalist. He subordinated the actual interests of the German nation to the interests of a mythical race, and to his ideology. Winston Churchill and Charles DeGaulle were nationalists.

You can starve cities and disband them.

Cheater. You get a bad city, rush build settlers. Starving them is just a cheat.

Just think of Civilization as an indoctrination to patriarchy, and all those wonderful things that divide people and is the cause of endless hate and killing. That's what bringing a stone age tribe to the nuclear age is all about, afterall.

Fine - you think building temples and cathedrals is religious indoctrination, building markets and banks is evil capitalism, building courthouses is building up the evil of state society, then DONT BUY CIV. In return let me suggest that if you think doing whatever mayhem you do in GTA is bad stuff, dont buy GTA.

Im perfectly willing to accept that Civ2 is an endorsement of late capitalist democracy, and the steps to get there, as these other games are of mindless violence.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Osweld
Yeah, it's wonderful. Just ask hitler, look what it let him do.

doesn't follow

Jon Miller

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Snotty


Kids can tell the difference between whats real and simulated. They also know violence is wrong, and they shouldnt do it.

you wanna bet? A thousand victims of school yard bullies will tell you otherwise. They may know that SHOOTING someone will get them in deep trouble, and have enough impulse control not to do it, but there's plenty of violence. and even more nastiness and verbal violence, teasing and other non-violent bullying.
And then theres the absolutely horrific number of teenage suicides - violence against the self.

Again - the impact of violent cultural products is NOT just the number of kids who commit violent acts - its the numbing to violence, and the harm to the spirit involved in viewing and (yes) vicariously participating in violent acts.

[lord of the mark]

From CulturalPolicy.uchicago.edu


"In a study of 8th and 9th graders, students who played more violent video games were also more likely to see the world as a hostile place, to get into frequent arguments with teachers, and to be involved in physical fights (Gentile et al., under review). It has often been suggested that violent video games are not the culprit for these types of behaviors; instead, the cause is underlying hostility. The argument goes, "Hostile kids get into more arguments and more fights. They also like to play more violent games." While this is true, it is not the whole story. This study measured children’s trait hostility, and found that exposure to video game violence is a significant predictor of physical fights, even when students’ sex, hostility level, and amount of video game playing are controlled statistically. If hostility were the whole story, then in general, only hostile children would tend to get into fights, and children with the lowest hostility scores would not get into physical fights regardless of their video game habits. Figure 1 shows the percentages of students who report being involved in physical fights within the previous year. Children with the lowest hostility scores are almost 10 times more likely to have been involved in physical fights if they play a lot of violent video games than if they do not play violent games (38% compared to 4%). In fact, the least hostile children who play a lot of violent video games are more likely to be involved in fights than are the most hostile children who do not play violent video games. "

[Snotty]

The only violence I see on a regular basis is parents smacking their kids in shops.

Kids have bullied other kids since time immemorial. The numbness is not the problem with them, it is the enjoyment they get out of it. I would rather a bully vented his anger on a computer game than on another kid. Perhaps violent games act as an escape valve for violent kids eh?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Snotty

so what is its basic premise?

All this takes place against the backdrop of a living, breathing city. Shops, pedestrians and traffic. You have the freedom to interact with everything in the city, and this includes shooting them and running them over if you wish.

So like I can go into the store and buy things, talk to the people, start a business, whatever? what "The sims" should have been but wasn't? Sound like a good game. So if i never follow the criminal missions, and in sandbox mode never engage in violent acts, this will be a good game - not a hollow one?

[Snotty]

CulturalPolicy.uchicago.edu

Would you mind making my life easier and providing the link to the study page. Thanks

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Snotty
The only violence I see on a regular basis is parents smacking their kids in shops.

Kids have bullied other kids since time immemorial. The numbness is not the problem with them, it is the enjoyment they get out of it. I would rather a bully vented his anger on a computer game than on another kid. Perhaps violent games act as an escape valve for violent kids eh?

Release the steam. classic defense. Maybe its true. Such evidence as their is doesnt indicate that, though. Builds more steam then it releases. especially given (like all indoor sedentary pursuits) that it takes time away from outdoor physical activity, which might actually release steam.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Hitler wasnt a nationalist. He subordinated the actual interests of the German nation to the interests of a mythical race, and to his ideology.

His followers where nationalists, that's the point (and why i said "let him do"). Nationalism does nothing but create blind loyalty and stops people from thinking for themselves.

And Hitler was a nationalist of *his* germany - not modern day germany, or the germany that existed before him, but the one he was making.

Cheater. You get a bad city, rush build settlers. Starving them is just a cheat.

That's not cheating, and who said anything about rush building settlers anyways? I let them slowly starve to death while I get a bunch of tax collectors going, and only build a settler when it's down to one.

(EDIT: oh wait, that's what you're calling a cheat. why? having a bunch of settlers is a hell of a bigger advantage then a starving city)

Fine - you think building temples and cathedrals is religious indoctrination, building markets and banks is evil capitalism, building courthouses is building up the evil of state society, then DONT BUY CIV. In return let me suggest that if you think doing whatever mayhem you do in GTA is bad stuff, dont buy GTA.

Why would I do that? They're both fun games. Regardless of the things they have you do, they're games and no sane person would be influenced to believe or do something against their nature by playing them.

Im perfectly willing to accept that Civ2 is an endorsement of late capitalist democracy

You forgot monarchy, communism, fanatacism, war, nuclear weapons, and terrorism (poisoning water supplies, anyeone?).

[Snotty]

So like I can go into the store and buy things, talk to the people, start a business, whatever? what "The sims" should have been but wasn't? Sound like a good game. So if i never follow the criminal missions, and in sandbox mode never engage in violent acts, this will be a good game - not a hollow one?

The game has its limits and understandably the focus is going to be on making the criminal activities fun. I dont think many players are going to want to open a business when they can do something much more exciting. The missions are the focus of the game. You can play civ without building an empire if you like, but its not much fun

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Snotty

CulturalPolicy.uchicago.edu

Would you mind making my life easier and providing the link to the study page. Thanks

just this once.


http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/c...ers/walsh.html