Grand Theft Auto changed to an adults only game!

[Dis]

yep, you have to be 18 to watch porn. So if you are under 18, the best thing is to get the real thing. . Easier said than done for most people though.

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Yes. People who kill should be sent to jail. And people who design, publish, and sell crap that degrades teenagers' souls should be shamed. And folks who deceive the ESRB should have, maybe, the ratings withdrawn on all their games?

I think all parts of the entertainment industry should be more sensitive to the effect their work can have - its very easy to pander to the lowest donominator for sales, and then hold up your hands and say "i didnt pull the trigger".

But then i know in my time as a computer gamer, i haven't ever thought "well it was ok on that game to waste an entire town, so why don't i try it in real life?".

Still as games have gotten more realistic, combined in some cases with the apparent decline in parenting(for what ever reason), then maybe we should be treading more carefuly? instead of rushing to see who can put the most gore/sex on screen in our interactive games.

To put it another way, when i look around at the 'hoodies', and with their general attitude to life(ie based on disrespect), and a lack of role models other than gangstas available, then i do wonder at their 'reality' and games encouraging their fantasy could be detrimental in their development as useful members of society?

Fun is fine, but we should be more carefull - maybe the porsche your game enabled you to buy will get jacked at a stop light sometime because a kid played your violent game at a crucial point in their development.

Sex in games as it is and has been in the past(remember the 'nude' graphics in Daggerfall! ), is pretty tame - but maybe not what parents want their kids to see and play at?
Excessive graphic violence should be viewed in the same way imho. Its never added that much to the gameplay experience other than a fleeting "wow! that was a bit different". Gameplay is so much more than that i find.

Edit: I'm sounding 'Old' arent i

[Kuciwalker]

But then i know in my time as a computer gamer, i haven't ever thought "well it was ok on that game to waste an entire town, so why don't i try it in real life?".

Still as games have gotten more realistic, combined in some cases with the apparent decline in parenting(for what ever reason), then maybe we should be treading more carefuly?

No. There's no reason to believe increasing realism will suddenly create an effect where, as you observed, there is none.

[child of Thor]

well the majority of my observations during my 'formative' years generaly involved games using screens of 200x160 pixles with a hanfull of displayable colours.

Now as i've reached the big 30 in my life its difficult to tell the effect the higher graphic detail in games will have on me as i'm already a fully grown and rational(mostly) adult. just a thought really.

We never ever had newspaper headlines in 1986 along the lines of 'Manic miner drove me to kill' etc. We do get that kind of thing now though(on rare occasions), so maybe we need to look into it more(developers also)?

[lord of the mark]

"Still as games have gotten more realistic, combined in some cases with the apparent decline in parenting(for what ever reason)"


lets see

1. Parents who both work, feel guilty toward their kids, and are less likely to resist requests for things (like violent games) they no are bad.

2. Parents, living in a multicultural age, with traditions weaker, less grandparents around, religion weaker or converted into its own form of consumerism, are less secure as parents, more easily manipulated.

3. Parents, living in a world with such an emphasis on popularity, dont want their kids to be "uncool" and isolated - adds lots of weight to "but Mom, ALL the other kids have it!!"

4. Parents living in a world of such technological advance and cultural change cant keep up "Mom, remember how they said play station was evil, and i showed you my Harry Potter game? Well GTA really isnt that different" "sure thing, son"

5. Divorced parents spoil kids, in a battle theyre having with each other, and have tough times saying no.

etc, etc.

Maybe it isnt the game companies, etc. Maybe it IS the parenting that has changed. But to glibly say, ah, this would be easy if only parents werent so stupid ... well I can understand why folks who dislike the push for restrictions, whether by govt, retailers, or even for rating systems, would say it. But its also hardly surprising that the mass of parents, who voted, and whom the politicians are appealing to, dont think much of it.


What we really need, even more than we need for game publishers to feel ashamed for pushing crap on kids, is for parents to NOT feel ashamed for saying no. But thats harder to achieve than it sounds.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by child of Thor
I think all parts of the entertainment industry should be more sensitive to the effect their work can have - its very easy to pander to the lowest donominator for sales, and then hold up your hands and say "i didnt pull the trigger".

So you say that the gun manufactors (sp?) is fault whenever someone uses one of their guns to shoot people?

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
edit......

What we really need, even more than we need for game publishers to feel ashamed for pushing crap on kids, is for parents to NOT feel ashamed for saying no. But thats harder to achieve than it sounds.

And that would be great - as i mentioned above a recent survey showed that parents buy games for their kids with little regaurd to the ELSPA rating system.

Still in these complicated times 'maybe' it would be helpful for the games industry(and gamers) to be more sensitive to these issues? Else we wil end up with many more enemies than we probably deserve.

When the dust has settled and things are in place to all parties satisfaction, then we can proceed as normal. I'm just worried that in the current climate the games industry is leaving itself open to be scape goated.

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by Adagio


So you say that the gun manufactors (sp?) is fault whenever someone uses one of their guns to shoot people?

well in this exact analogy i'm of the opinion 'Yes'. If no one made guns - then no-one would die a gun related death. very simple viewpoint and not without its flaws. I do believe we would live in a better world without guns though.

make not (war)

[Adagio]

Originally posted by child of Thor
well in this exact analogy i'm of the opinion 'Yes'. If no one made guns - then no-one would die a gun related death. very simple viewpoint and not without its flaws. I do believe we would live in a better world without guns though.

make not (war)

While I do agree that guns shouldn't be sold to people who don't have the need for it on their job I still don't see how this could be the gun manufactors fault if the gun is used to illegal activities since it would "always" be possible to "steal" a gun from a police or so
Of course if you're also saying that police/Secret Service/Whatever shouldn't have a gun either then I kinda see your point

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Adagio


While I do agree that guns shouldn't be sold to people who don't have the need for it on their job I still don't see how this could be the gun manufactors fault if the gun is used to illegal activities since it would "always" be possible to "steal" a gun from a police or so
Of course if you're also saying that police/Secret Service/Whatever shouldn't have a gun either then I kinda see your point

so youre saying that if a copy of GTA is stolen from the police, its unfair to hold Rockstar responsible?

Youre being confusing Adg. COT said he thought game publishers shared responsibility - you asked if he thought gun makers are also responsible for crime ( a good question for hypocritical US conservatives say - but you asked it of COT) He said yeah, sure, and now youre critiquing that position? Are you saying that no one who sells anything is responsible for the consequences? if so, you could have said that directely about the publishers - no need to bring in the gun issue.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
so youre saying that if a copy of GTA is stolen from the police, its unfair to hold Rockstar responsible?

Why should Rockstar be held responsible?

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Youre being confusing Adg. COT said he thought game publishers shared responsibility - you asked if he thought gun makers are also responsible for crime ( a good question for hypocritical US conservatives say - but you asked it of COT) He said yeah, sure, and now youre critiquing that position?

Well, I wasn't critquing his position (even though now that I read back on what I wrote it could sound like that), I was more trying to explain my view on it... this part I failed bigtime

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Are you saying that no one who sells anything is responsible for the consequences? if so, you could have said that directely about the publishers - no need to bring in the gun issue.

I'm not saying that those who sells anything is not responsible, but those who makes whatever can't be held responsible (if whatever it is can be used to positive things and is the main reason for it)

I brought up the gun issue because I have often been in situations* like this (or heard about people being in situations like this) where asking this question almost always gets the other person to reconsider his or her reasons for the oppinions (I'm not saying I want them to change, but at least to have them actually think about the issue we're talking about)... this time it kinda backfired, I haven't heard anyone who got that question answer with a yes


*The "who's responisble" situation




/me runs away

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Adagio




Why should Rockstar be held responsible?



Well, I wasn't critquing his position (even though now that I read back on what I wrote it could sound like that), I was more trying to explain my view on it... this part I failed bigtime



I'm not saying that those who sells anything is not responsible, but those who makes whatever can't be held responsible (if whatever it is can be used to positive things and is the main reason for it)

I brought up the gun issue because I have often been in situations* like this (or heard about people being in situations like this) where asking this question almost always gets the other person to reconsider his or her reasons for the oppinions (I'm not saying I want them to change, but at least to have them actually think about the issue we're talking about)... this time it kinda backfired, I haven't heard anyone who got that question answer with a yes


*The "who's responisble" situation




* Adagio runs away

its ok. We're all confusing now and then.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Adagio

http://www.greatestjournal.com/users/the_loot/11886.html

Some good read about someone else who's tired if this. He sent an email to Clinton and Thompson (but haven't responded)


(...) the scenes involving nudity which we modded into the game (by default, "Hot Coffee" did contain fully clothed actors...) (...)

So it wasn't R* that included the nude skin?

I would LOVE it if GTA-SA took back his old rating in light of this information This would give me troll material to no end

[Carolus Rex]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

lets see

1. Parents who both work, feel guilty toward their kids, and are less likely to resist requests for things (like violent games) they no are bad.

"No" = "know", I suppose?

As a gamer I fear not computer games. On the contrary, I believe they are highly stimulating, contribute to children's intelligence, imagination and logical thinking; and perhaps even improve their coordination and social capacities.

The real danger IMHO is the potential addiction computer games may give rise to, and the negative effects that may have on school work or on just plain book reading in general.

Originally posted by lord of the mark

2. Parents, living in a multicultural age, with traditions weaker, less grandparents around, religion weaker or converted into its own form of consumerism, are less secure as parents, more easily manipulated.

A society built on consumption, where individuals are judged from what they own and earn (and not from who they are) is an empty society indeed. Unfortunatley, that's what we live in and I don't like it any more than you do...

But I strongly disagree with your claim that parents without a religious faith are lesser parents. Nor do I believe that most people today are more easily manipulated than in the past. I think that most people in our times are better informed, more critical towards authorities, more prone to voice their opinions, and less inclined to "bow their heads" and accept whatever "directive" that any leading person in a society imposes.

That being said, it is difficult to know why we behave or think as we do in a world with so many influences. But I would pick such a multicultural, diverse society over a homogeneous, conformist one every time... I would also have confidence in my ability to deal with it...

Originally posted by lord of the mark

4. Parents living in a world of such technological advance and cultural change cant keep up "Mom, remember how they said play station was evil, and i showed you my Harry Potter game? Well GTA really isnt that different" "sure thing, son"

Yeah, I think you're right about older generations lagging behind the younger ones. I also think that it's this gap that creates the fear... The less you know about a thing, the more alienated you will feel with respect to it...

The people going after computer games are the same kind that burnt rock and roll records in the late 1950s and early 1960s... I find it hilarious watching the old films (news reels) from inland US towns with the "respectable" inhabitants headed by the priest, the teacher or the doctor (all males, of course) gathering at the city square for a little LP barbeque...

When the VCR came in the late 1970s/early 1980s there was also an outcry... People who bought VCRs either rented i) porn movies or ii) the Texas chain saw massacre...

Judas Priest, a heavy metal band, was taken to court in the 1980s or 1990s, accused of having recorded secret satanic messages on their LPs... Play their records backwards and Satanic prayers will be heard... They were acquitted (?) after having played other LPs (with well-known children's lullabys IIRC?) backwards in court, revealing more "satanic" messages... I guess LPs are not supposed to be played backwards...

I could list a hundred other cases, where intolerant people (not surprisingly under one religious banner or other) have tried to stop, censor, demean or otherwise prevent "non-conformist" people from expressing themselves... The strange (not really) thing is that, in hindsight (with the passing of time), it all seems so ridiculous...

Originally posted by lord of the mark

What we really need, even more than we need for game publishers to feel ashamed for pushing crap on kids, is for parents to NOT feel ashamed for saying no. But thats harder to achieve than it sounds.

Yes, I believe you're right (and for some of the reasons you give above). But can we also agree on the following?

i) Isn't it strange to be allowed to have sex in real life, but you are not allowed to watch an artifical (pixel) form of it?

ii) It has always been difficult to be a parent, yes?

iii) No matter which era, the parent (and older) generations have felt that the youth has degenerated and is in more "danger" than they themselves were?

iv) That the fear in iii) has always been exaggerated? That most young people grow up and "turn out" more or less "ok"?

Carolus

[lord of the mark]

"No" = "know", I suppose?

As a gamer I fear not computer games. On the contrary, I believe they are highly stimulating, contribute to children's intelligence, imagination and logical thinking; and perhaps even improve their coordination and social capacities.

The real danger IMHO is the potential addiction computer games may give rise to, and the negative effects that may have on school work or on just plain book reading in general.

I was unclear. I didnt mean they know ALL games to be bad (heck im here cause i love Civ2, and im now enjoying EU2) I meant they buy or allow particular games which they know to be bad, cause they feel guilty.

A society built on consumption, where individuals are judged from what they own and earn (and not from who they are) is an empty society indeed. Unfortunatley, that's what we live in and I don't like it any more than you do...

But I strongly disagree with your claim that parents without a religious faith are lesser parents. Nor do I believe that most people today are more easily manipulated than in the past. I think that most people in our times are better informed, more critical towards authorities, more prone to voice their opinions, and less inclined to "bow their heads" and accept whatever "directive" that any leading person in a society imposes.

That being said, it is difficult to know why we behave or think as we do in a world with so many influences. But I would pick such a multicultural, diverse society over a homogeneous, conformist one every time... I would also have confidence in my ability to deal with it..."

Im not judging here which society is better, or which makes for better parenting in general - im focused more on the question of "Self-confident" parenting. And i think parents in a more traditional age, and in a more religious culture, had a far easier time establishing limits, and saying no.

Yeah, I think you're right about older generations lagging behind the younger ones. I also think that it's this gap that creates the fear... The less you know about a thing, the more alienated you will feel with respect to it...

The people going after computer games are the same kind that burnt rock and roll records in the late 1950s and early 1960s... I find it hilarious watching the old films (news reels) from inland US towns with the "respectable" inhabitants headed by the priest, the teacher or the doctor (all males, of course) gathering at the city square for a little LP barbeque...

When the VCR came in the late 1970s/early 1980s there was also an outcry... People who bought VCRs either rented i) porn movies or ii) the Texas chain saw massacre...

Judas Priest, a heavy metal band, was taken to court in the 1980s or 1990s, accused of having recorded secret satanic messages on their LPs... Play their records backwards and Satan's voice will be heard... They were acquitted (?) after having played other LPs (with well-known children's lullabys IIRC?) backwards in court, revealing more "satanic" messages... I guess LPs are not supposed to be played backwards...

I could list a hundred other cases, where intolerant people (not surprisingly under one religious banner or other) have tried to stop, censor, demean or otherwise prevent "non-conformist" people from expressing themselves... The strange (not really) thing is that, in hindsight (with the passing of time), it all seems so ridiculous...

But the current attacks we're seeing on Rockstar, etc are NOT that computer games in general are bad, or that the Xbox should be banned etc (well there are such arguments, but they go more to the kinds of things you mentioned above yourself, time spent reading or outdoors, etc) Theyre attacks on PARTICULAR games and styles of gaming. Much as some people still have concerns about particular kinds of movies. Which dont seem all that silly, at least to me.

Yes, I believe you're right (and for some of the reasons you give above). But can we also agree on the following?

i) Isn't it strange to be allowed to have sex in real life, but you are not allowed to watch an artifical (pixel) form of it?

To what age group are you referring? Again the situation here is not simple. An "M rated" game is theoretically for 17 plus, but everybody know that many such games, and for some titles most are played by under 17's. Many are bought by parents. The question COT and I are trying to get at is why?

ii) It has always been difficult to be a parent, yes?

I suppose. But there are different kinds of difficulties. Economic difficulties are less now (here in the US) than
40 years ago - much less than 70 years ago. Protecting kids for racism and sexism is easier, I suppose. Protecting kids from certain kinds of crap is more difficult.


{q]iii) No matter which era, the parent (and older) generations have felt that the youth has degenerated and is in more "danger" than they themselves were?[/q]

My generation was endangered by the sheer quantity of exposure to TV, when parents didnt seem to realize how negative that could be. I think Ive learned from that - im amazed at how many parents havent. As for content, i think there is certainly more danger. When i grew up the beatles and the Stones were the dangers (as far as pop culture was concerned) they look pretty damned innocent today. In any case, the argument, "ah dont worry, people always say how bad it is" seems glib to me.

"iv) That the fear in iii) has always been exaggerated? That most young people grow up and "turn out" more or less "ok"?"

It depends on your expectations. You mean that hardly any kids will end up commmitting murder? Great. The number of teen suicides is disturbingly high. Look at the total number of people with depression, anxiety, etc. I want childhood to be more than the avoidance of total disaster. I want it to be a time of joy, and discovery, and a basis for a healthy life.