$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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Osweld


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.

Im not going to debate nationalism with you. You dont like nationalism dont buy civ.

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.

That was my point. Build settlers is the proper approaching. Converting to tax collectors is cheating.
The AI wont do it. Its not what the designers intended. Its taking advantage of a loophole in the rules. Kinda like ICS.

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.

and wont be influenced by films, music, books, etc. Sorry, I believe culture matters. We arent just the products of our genes and our parents. Or our "natures" whatever that means. We are ALSO impacted by the cultural products we read, view and play. Too bad that can be used by some to justify censorship. Its absurd to ignore it on that account.

and lots of kids spend a lot more time with games than they do with films, books etc. And the games are INTERACTIVE and IMMERSIVE - arguably MORE powerful than books or films.

Sorry, "its just a game" is a nice line, but it doesnt cut it with me.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Snotty

Quote:

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

well yeah, thats my point. To say that the criminal activities and the violence in the open ended game are optional is kinda meaningless if there isnt anything else to do. My impression is that most players either play the criminal missions, or they go around running over old ladies et al.

[Snotty]

Actually most people do both.

Im not saying the crim activities are optional.

[Snotty]

Well, they are optional in pretty much the same way as building settlers in civ.

[Snotty]

Thats actually an awful analogy, but you get my point.

[Snotty]

LotM, youve given me a lot to think about. Ive got a number of studys to read my way through, but I will be sure to pick this thread up again then.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
That was my point. Build settlers is the proper approaching. Converting to tax collectors is cheating.
The AI wont do it. Its not what the designers intended. Its taking advantage of a loophole in the rules. Kinda like ICS.

Guess you didn't catch my edit. How's that a cheat? Having a bunch of settlers (assuming you can afford it) is a much bigger advantage then having a starving city. And the AI doesn't disband cities, either.

and wont be influenced by films, music, books, etc. Sorry, I believe culture matters. We arent just the products of our genes and our parents. Or our "natures" whatever that means. We are ALSO impacted by the cultural products we read, view and play. Too bad that can be used by some to justify censorship. Its absurd to ignore it on that account.

and lots of kids spend a lot more time with games than they do with films, books etc. And the games are INTERACTIVE and IMMERSIVE - arguably MORE powerful than books or films.

Sorry, "its just a game" is a nice line, but it doesnt cut it with me.

I've been playing video game since I was 4 years old. I was brought up on Sim City, Civilization, Dungeons & Dragons, Duke Nuken 3D, Half-Life, ect... Yet I disagree with the 'lesson' that they are supposedly sending. (With a few exceptions, like D&D - I'm all for sorcery )

And I know all about kids not reading books - I didn't start untill I was about 15. One of the first books I read was a 'practical sciences' book, and I've turned out to be extremly sceptical of science. I watched alot of action movies too - I think I saw the terminator at the ripe age of 9 - but that didn't make me into a ultra-violent gun nut either. Hey, and I've turned out to despise all of that Hollywood garbage, too.

Do I possess some sort of super-human immunity to all this brain-washing culture? Or maybe people will just do what's in their nature.

Alright, but really, I'll agree that things can have an influence on people - but no more then anything else can. Seeing a waterfall can change the way a person looks at life, just as seeing a movie can. And ultimately, how they react to such things is determined by the person they are and how they interpret it, not what they're looking at. I guess you can say it's relative to personality.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Osweld

I've been playing video game since I was 4 years old. I was brought up on Sim City, Civilization, Dungeons & Dragons, Duke Nuken 3D, Half-Life, ect... Yet I disagree with the 'lesson' that they are supposedly sending. (With a few exceptions, like D&D - I'm all for sorcery )

And I know all about kids not reading books - I didn't start untill I was about 15. One of the first books I read was a 'practical sciences' book, and I've turned out to be extremly sceptical of science. I watched alot of action movies too - I think I saw the terminator at the ripe age of 9 - but that didn't make me into a ultra-violent gun nut either. Hey, and I've turned out to despise all of that Hollywood garbage, too.

Do I possess some sort of super-human immunity to all this brain-washing culture? Or maybe people will just do what's in their nature.

Alright, but really, I'll agree that things can have an influence on people - but no more then anything else can. Seeing a waterfall can change the way a person looks at life, just as seeing a movie can. And ultimately, how they react to such things is determined by the person they are and how they interpret it, not what they're looking at. I guess you can say it's relative to personality.

i wont challenge your sharing your own life story. I will again point to my Grandpa - he ate beef almost every day of his life, and never suffered from heart disease - does that mean i should toss out the window the research showing a link between saturated fat and heart disease, or say well its everyones nature that causes heart disease, not what they eat. That would be just silly. What we are physically and mentally is a combination of things - we start with genes, and are influenced by different aspects of our environment from the womb to the tomb, as it were. you played civ and ended up dislike nationalism - good for you - I read Marx as a lad, and ended up liking nationalism and welfare state capitalism(though i still like a good class analysis now and then ) But I wont say my character hasnt been shaped by books, films and games. To the extent they have shaped me they are now part of me, and not something whose influence i can readily perceive.

This does not stop me from judging some cultural producets as ON THE WHOLE, and ON THE AVERAGE negative influences. And while i may oppose censorship (in large part because i dont trust the state to make subtle judgements, and more because i fear such a power being abused) I will not stop lobbying in the public space (such as this) against cultural products i think degrade the culture. In the course of time I will offend some people. Surely if games are only games, then posts are only post, right?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


i wont challenge your sharing your own life story. I will again point to my Grandpa - he ate beef almost every day of his life, and never suffered from heart disease - does that mean i should toss out the window the research showing a link between saturated fat and heart disease

But this is exactly my point, it isn't beef that causes heart disease, it's the saturated fat and how your body handles it that causes heart disease.

What I'm saying is that these things inlfuence people, they don't change them. They display something and people can analyse it for themselves and come away with something different acording to how they view the world. In this sense, a computer game is no different then anything else in the world.

As an example of what I mean, one person can look at a Waterfall and say "nature is great" while another person can watch a documentary and say the same thing, or yet another person can look at the waterfall and say "What a powerful force water is, it's a perfect source for electricity" It's how you interpret it. Our differences between Civilization is another perfect example. Obviously, civilization doesn't turn people into raging agrandizers anymore then it turns people into democratic capitalists. We both see the game and it's contents differently. As I said before, it's relative to personality.

[Mercator]

How about a hybrid RPG/FPS (or maybe more of a RPG/management game) called Frivolous Lawsuit.

You can, say, jump in front of cars, or buy cigarettes. Once your health drops below a critical level, you can sue those responsible.

Alternatively, you can get stuck in traffic jams, get yelled at at work, play violent games or watch violent movies. That will increase aggressiveness until finally you pop and go on a killing spree. You can then sue the individuals/companies responsible.

The ultimate goal is to rake in as much money as possible, as quickly as possible (and preferably not to die or get locked up either).

But of course, you will also lose lawsuits, so you'll need the money you do win to pay better lawyers etc.

[Q Classic]

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?

if you want. i personally don't think too much about them, nor do i think too much about pornographers. i suppose if they didn't do it, somebody else would, and i still wouldn't give a damn.

so what is its basic premise?

rather than beating up old ladies, you're a hired thug in the middle of a bunch of gangs.
i never made the claim that the game's premise was good. i just pointed out that it's not about beating up old ladies.

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.

and involves active parenting, not more legislation.
kids younger than 17 aren't technically allowed to watch R movies without a guardian. nor are they supposed to watch nc-17 movies. but without active parenting, these kids can rent such movies, buy them, watch them on their own time when the parents aren't around. games are another form of entertainment which needs no heavy-handed legislation to moderate it.
you need to have parents involved. if they aren't involved, then there's nothing any legislation can do.
one only needs to look at urban blight to see this is true.

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.

so, rather than *****ing about them not doing it, why don't you go make one? the tools are easy to pick up.
besides, i've never seen a modder/designer use the term "kewl"--that seems to be the province of script kiddies and younglings.

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

if it's allowed in the rules, without modification, it's not a cheat. we have different definitons. besides, it's not like there haven't been leaders who starved everyone by turning them into something profitable: like slave labor.

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.

and i say again, don't piss on other people's methods of stress relief.

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.

how much you want to bet that school bullies will have disengagged parents? what about those kids that commit suicide--you think most of them feel engaged and involved in their parents' lives?
you think violent cultural products have more influence than a parent who doesn't give a ****ing damn about their kid?
you have an active parent, you get rid of a lot of violent influences: they'll put their foot down.

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 engine isn't quite that advanced. this game was designed for action, not for simulating life.

look, what it boils down to is that it's not the games responsible for these tragic incidents. if you don't have a goddamn parent there, every single ****ing day of the kid's life, to provide warmth, love, guidence, and care, you're going to have seriously ****ed up kids. the games, the movies, the music, the books--it's all minor compared to the parental contribution.

[Mercator]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
look, what it boils down to is that it's not the games responsible for these tragic incidents. if you don't have a goddamn parent there, every single ****ing day of the kid's life, to provide warmth, love, guidence, and care, you're going to have seriously ****ed up kids. the games, the movies, the music, the books--it's all minor compared to the parental contribution.

This lawsuit is nothing but a kneejerk reaction from detached parents, shocked by the fact that they didn't see this coming. So they desparately try to cover their own asses and show that they really DO care for and love their kids.

[Q Classic]

exactly. and it's silly to place the onus of this violent outburst on the games.

[Ben Kenobi]

those kids that commit suicide--you think most of them feel engaged and involved in their parents' lives?

Seems rather excessive. Bullying plays a role in some of the suicides, regardless of the parents and their involvement.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
In related news, Saddam Hussein, Mullah Omar, and Jacques Chirac are suing Sid Meiers, Brian Reynolds, Firaxis, Microprose and Activision (well the defendants' side IS rather complicated - hopefully this will be sorted out) for developing a game encouraging global domination by an advanced, late capitalist, democracy that posseses the Statue of Liberty and the Hoover Dam.

Excellent!