$246 million lawsuit against makers of GTA3!

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Osweld

Well, that's bull. Someone gets shot and no one's responsible?

Alright then, you're responsible. Feel better?

[:) Smiley]

If GTA creates future gunmen, CIV creates future dictators. Ban it!

Hey, does anyone remember the time Greece banned all video games to crack down on gambling? How exactly did that go?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Dissident
I knew this would happen eventually. I am suprised it took this long.

I wonder how long it will take before someone is hacked to death by a samuri sword until a lawsuit if filed against Tarantino, Disney, and Miramax films.

In any case I must agree GTA III is a very irresponsible game. Though I have played it. I wasn't really good, so I quit playing.

one of the things i hate about arguments like this is that im 99% sure a game like this is actually junk anyway, but I really cant claim that without having played it, and I'll be damned if im going to go buy a game like this just to make a point here.

[Q Classic]

gta3 is fun for the first few hundred times you just whack an old lady with a baseball bat.

then it gets boring. what's the point? it's the same old lady over and over again.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
gta3 is fun for the first few hundred times you just whack an old lady with a baseball bat.

then it gets boring. what's the point? it's the same old lady over and over again.

why would it be fun to whack an old lady with a baseball bat?

[Q Classic]

because it's so wrong.

that said, doing that sort of thing and wreaking havoc is only fun for about 30 minutes.

rockstar's more recent game, state of emergency, followed up on that same openness present in gta3. you could do more evil things, if you wished, with more weapons and more everything.

sales aren't too good, and it was panned by reviewers. doing bad sh|t like that is fun when it's novel. after about an hour's worth of play, you're ready to move on to something more substantial.

[mrmitchell]

This case winning could set one of the most disturbing precedents I can imagine.

It's not a leap to say the principle could be extended to books and movies and music. Soon, authors will be afraid of writing anything violent at all. Movies will consist of no action, and (c)rappers won't be able to say anything about shootin' the other rappers (or whatever it is they excrement about).

Although I hate the man and I hate him for all he is worth, Eminem provides a catchy (c)rap for this kind of thing.

They say music can alter moods and talk to you
Well can it load a gun up for you , and **** it too
Well if it can, then the next time you assault a dude
Just tell the judge it was my fault and i'll get sued

It ain't the game. It ain't the game developer. It's kids who need medication, or it's parents who practice extreme neglect.

[MRT144]

sometimes i wish that canadians would invade the US and force us to live like them.

[duke o' york]

Originally posted by Snotty
All I want to know is if I let my girlfriend play 'the sims' will she then try and blare a horn in my ear?

No, but be careful in case she tries to stick a large arrow into the top of your head.

Originally posted by Osweld
Well, that's bull. Someone gets shot and no one's responsible?

It's Skanky's fault.

[lord of the mark]

Geez, and when I write about antisemitism people accuse ME of being thin skinned

Get real people. This lawsuit aint goint anywhere. There may be studies showing violent games increase aggresssiveness, but that aint going to lead to a successful suit wrt to a murder. Lawsuits against tobacco manufacturers relied on data that cigs CAUSED CANCER, NOT that they caused coughs, and by extension cancer. COntrary to right wing ideologues, you actually have to have a reasonable case to get damages in our courts. And of course the developers can always use the rating as a shield - and both developers and retailer will use the rating to claim the parent should have known it was an inappropriate game.

So i wouldnt go about buying GTA on speculation that it will soon be in short supply. Dont worry. We can look forward to many more years of games like this, of slasher movies, and of violent rap songs continuing to pollute our culture, to degrade our youth, and to brutalize our society. It aint gonna be stopped by tort lawyers or by politicians. It MIGHT be stopped by shaming the producers and retailers, by consumer boycotts, by personally avoiding such products, and by trying to positively reshape our culture.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
because it's so wrong.

It would be wrong to go assasinate a producer of violent games. Can we look forward to an FPS about that?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


It would be wrong to go assasinate a producer of violent games. Can we look forward to an FPS about that?

How about settling for hacking into their system and destroying all their computer systems and work? There's a game where you can do that.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Osweld


How about settling for hacking into their system and destroying all their computer systems and work? There's a game where you can do that.

so if and when the producers of Half Life sue Micro$oft, will you be here to accuse them of foresaking personal responsibility, abusing the lawcourts, etc, etc

[General Ludd]

But yeah, I agree with you. Games go too far these days. Not like the good ol' days of civ, where kids could be introduced to usefull and holsome concepts like nationalism, war, genocide, nuclear anhilation, and sabotage, ect...

[Q Classic]

It would be wrong to go assasinate a producer of violent games. Can we look forward to an FPS about that?

well, actually, there are plenty of games where you can kill other people. some are awful, like postal 2, some are tolerable, like gta3.

you're missing the point of these video games: it's escapism, pure and simple. some of these kids want to do things that they know are impossible to do in real life; by and large, most of these kids also can tell the difference between the game world and the real world.

put it another way: some people like bum sex. why? because most of us were raised to think that it is taboo. so when people actually engage in it, they experience the rush of andrenaline from trying something that's wrong. same with people who participate in the mile high club, or those that begin to practice all sorts of deviancies.

gaming is no different in this respect. the escapist factor of not having to pay any consequences for nuking a city, or sniping and killing a bunch of people, or any of a number of highly illegal/highly dangerous/socially questionable deeds gives that andrenaline rush. that's why it's fun for a while.

if a game was made that focused on trying to assassinate the makers of daikatana, and it had ragdoll physics, people would play it for a while, simply because it's new, and it lets you do things that are wrong.

what's so hard to grasph about that?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


so if and when the producers of Half Life sue Micro$oft, will you be here to accuse them of foresaking personal responsibility, abusing the lawcourts, etc, etc

First, Microsoft didn't make the game I'm thinking about. And no game producer would ever use another video game as a scapegoat like that, but if they did, yeah, I'd laugh at them even more.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
I'm surprised no one has sued Tom Clancy for 9/11. He presented the idea to crash Jumbo Jets into US goverment buildings already in 1994 in the novel "Debt of Honour". I bet he has plenty of money that some lawyer would just love to take away from him.

The first pilot episode of the Xfiles spinoff "The Lone Gunman" had a plot to ram passenger jets into the WTC narrowly avoided. It aired in Sept. 2000.

[Q Classic]

fox, newscorp, and clancy should thus be held accountable for 9/11.

[Snotty]

No, but be careful in case she tries to stick a large arrow into the top of your head.

Yeah, Im not falling for that one again

The difference they are trying to make is games are interactive. Had there been a game about ramming jets into buildings, that would be a different matter.

MS Flight sim should get sued I know all I do when I play it is ram into things, and Im sure you do too.

As for GTA3 not being a good game, I cant say for sure, but I know GTA4 was fantastic. Randomly shooting someone in the head was great fun, but the real challenge lies in doing the missions, or creating your own difficult situations. You face the same tests of dexterity and speed that make any action game fun.

Mario was fun because you had to time your jumps just right, this is the same but against a different backdrop.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Osweld
But yeah, I agree with you. Games go too far these days. Not like the good ol' days of civ, where kids could be introduced to usefull and holsome concepts like nationalism, war, genocide, nuclear anhilation, and sabotage, ect...

well actually nationalism IS useful and wholesome

And no genocide in Civ2.

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.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

Quote:

It would be wrong to go assasinate a producer of violent games. Can we look forward to an FPS about that?

well, actually, there are plenty of games where you can kill other people. some are awful, like postal 2, some are tolerable, like gta3.

you're missing the point of these video games: it's escapism, pure and simple. some of these kids want to do things that they know are impossible to do in real life; by and large, most of these kids also can tell the difference between the game world and the real world.

put it another way: some people like bum sex. why? because most of us were raised to think that it is taboo. so when people actually engage in it, they experience the rush of andrenaline from trying something that's wrong. same with people who participate in the mile high club, or those that begin to practice all sorts of deviancies.

gaming is no different in this respect. the escapist factor of not having to pay any consequences for nuking a city, or sniping and killing a bunch of people, or any of a number of highly illegal/highly dangerous/socially questionable deeds gives that andrenaline rush. that's why it's fun for a while.

if a game was made that focused on trying to assassinate the makers of daikatana, and it had ragdoll physics, people would play it for a while, simply because it's new, and it lets you do things that are wrong.

what's so hard to grasph about that?

theres a difference between things I CANT do in real life, and things its absolutely vile to do.

Can I rule a nationstate in real life? no, so i do it in a game. Can i have an adventure in a cave filled with treasures? no, so i do it in a game. Can i fly an airplane - well i could if devoted the money and time, but realistically, no. Would I WANT to do all those things - sure, thats why playing a game about them is fun.

Its fun to do something if its forbidden - not really. Not even something basically innocent but forbidden, like the mile high club. Maybe I just didnt have authoritarian parents to rebel against, forbiddeness just doesnt seem a treat to me. And when the forbidden thing is something i would want to do in a million years? Forbiddenness overcomes that?

No I just dont get it. (I do get that these games might appeal not to rebelliousness, but to inner sadism. That doesnt sound as nice as rebelliousness I guess - and we can all understand that giving in to THAT in ourselves is a bad thing, and something we want to keep away from our children)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Osweld


First, Microsoft didn't make the game I'm thinking about. And no game producer would ever use another video game as a scapegoat like that, but if they did, yeah, I'd laugh at them even more.

i thought you meant the actual hacking which took place, not a game about it.


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.

[Q Classic]

theres a difference between things I CANT do in real life, and things its absolutely vile to do.

and most people who play these video games know that as well. simply because a few people cannot does not mean that all users are similarly handicapped.

Can I rule a nationstate in real life? no, so i do it in a game. Can i have an adventure in a cave filled with treasures? no, so i do it in a game. Can i fly an airplane - well i could if devoted the money and time, but realistically, no. Would I WANT to do all those things - sure, thats why playing a game about them is fun.

what's your point here? people will always get their jollies how they want. some people who don't like playing god games love fps games where the objective is to frag as many people as possible, and vice versa. you seem to be one of the latter.

Its fun to do something if its forbidden - not really. Not even something basically innocent but forbidden, like the mile high club. Maybe I just didnt have authoritarian parents to rebel against, forbiddeness just doesnt seem a treat to me. And when the forbidden thing is something i would want to do in a million years? Forbiddenness overcomes that?

huh? not sure what you're trying to say at the end of this... just because you don't find excitement in what is taboo does not mean others do not. everybody here probably feels that incest and paedophilia are repulsive and disgusting things; that doesn't stop some sick bastards from engaging in it--and some of them will revel in it, precisely because it is verboten. this is similar to the reason why so many idjit teenage girls proclaim themselves "wiccan", or why many satanists are satanists, or why some start smoking. it's rebellion, a way of doing something forbidden. just because you don't want to do it doesn't mean others don't.
when one breaks a rule, often times there's going to be a repercussion. when there is none, you feel as if you've gotten away with something--for some, that's precisely what running over pedestrians in GTA gives them. they know and realize that they can't commit vehicular homicide irl; but if they're pissed off at enough pedestrians to want to, let them release their anger, be it through screaming in the car or doing it in gta.

No I just dont get it. (I do get that these games might appeal not to rebelliousness, but to inner sadism. That doesnt sound as nice as rebelliousness I guess - and we can all understand that giving in to THAT in ourselves is a bad thing, and something we want to keep away from our children)

humans are a cruel race. whether it's innate or socially constructed is a matter of debate; but in this case, all we're concerned about is the desire to play such games.
are you willing to legislate how one person gets his jollies, just because someone else took it too far?

[Q Classic]

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.

it's not hard to do. most of the games where you can go around killing people are mod-enabled: anybody with a whit of talent can basically create their own game using that engine.
the fact that nobody's created one that targets game designers might have to do with the fact that the people creating them aren't interested in making them.

btw, the basic premise of GTA3 is not to beat and kill old ladies. nor is it to run around shooting things. just because it is capable of allowing such actions does not mean that the came was designed for that purpose.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
. everybody here probably feels that incest and paedophilia are repulsive and disgusting things; that doesn't stop some sick bastards from engaging in it--and some of them will revel in it, precisely because it is verboten.

fine and dandy - now can we agree to give the publishers of games about beating up old ladies the same degree of respect and social accceptance we give to pornographers?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
btw, the basic premise of GTA3 is not to beat and kill old ladies. nor is it to run around shooting things. just because it is capable of allowing such actions does not mean that the came was designed for that purpose.

so what is its basic premise?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
.
are you willing to legislate how one person gets his jollies, just because someone else took it too far?

Theres an excluded middle - there are possibilities other than legislating against something on the one hand, and simply saying each to his own tastes on the other. X rated films are legal in the US. They are (by a voluntary rating system) not supposed to be shown to minors. Anyone who allowed his children to possess them, much less show them to his childrens friends and acquaintances when they visit, would be ostracized. M rated games are legal, and are also not supposed to be played by children. Yet parents not only routinely allow their children to play such games, they allow them to be shown to friends and acquaintance who visit, without anyone even thinking of asking the parents of the visiting child for permission. Yet all evidence Im aware of indicates that viewing sex is far less damaging than exposure to simulated violence.

Dont make sense to me.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

Quote:

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.

it's not hard to do. most of the games where you can go around killing people are mod-enabled: anybody with a whit of talent can basically create their own game using that engine.
the fact that nobody's created one that targets game designers might have to do with the fact that the people creating them aren't interested in making them.

.

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.

[lord of the mark]

How about this - the film industy has a program, IIUC to actively discourage underage attendance at films. This includes fairly humorous and prominent posters at movie theaters, and i believe some degree of training to theater employees.

How about the publishers of violent games finance a similar campaign about their rating system, with posters placed PROMINENTLY in major retail outlets, and train retail employees on the need to check age for game purchases. Better yet, and even less realistically, how about the game publishers engage in an advertising campaign, similar to that run by the beer industry, to discourage people from allowing their kids to play games meant for adults.

[Chemical Ollie]

When I was 20, I had the program "Shoot'em up Construction Kit" for my C64. In one of the games I made, the player was the driver of an Icecream home delivery company (Swedish Hemglass ) who had gone mad. The mission was to run people over with your van and avoid obstacles and enemy bullets. In the first level you met kids, dogs and mothers with baby trolleys, in the second level you met policemen with pistols and in the third and final level you met army soldiers with automatic rifles and invulnerable tanks. Your only weapon was the van itself, people on foot or pets would give you points, while bullets, cars and tanks were lethal to you.