Thanks to Yahoo/Reuters for its article discussing Senator Joseph Lieberman's comments regarding Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto at a recent women's forum at Dartmouth College. Interestingly, Lieberman, a Democratic presidential hopeful and long-time proponent of views on this subject, comments: "Video games have gotten better over time", but continues: "There's a couple out there that are horrendous... You ought to see one called Grand Theft Auto. The player is rewarded for attacking a woman, pushing her to the ground, kicking her repeatedly and then ultimately killing her, shooting her over and over again." Although this isn't the specific goal of the game, he continues: "I call on the entertainment companies - they've got a right to do that, but they have a responsibility not to do it if we want to raise the next generation of our sons to treat women with respect."
I have to agree with him. I've played Grand theft auto, and I belive people should be horified about the kind of guy they are playing. Horified that they can find in themselves the type of person who would do that, even in a game. Never mind that it is a game and they can recignise the difference between a game and real life, they can do that in a game.
It isn't right to make that type of game illegal (unless someone proves byond all doupt that it really does lead everyone to bad behaviour...), but that doesn't mean it is right to enjoy the game.
by Anonymous Coward
on Monday January 26 2004, @11:55AM (#8088902)
Don't be stupid. The guy in the game is amoral. He does only what you make him do. You make him hit a woman, and kick her until she bleeds to death, that's your affair.
What you have to worry about is the fact that people choose to make him do those things, over and over again. And then cry about how nasty the programmers are.
All the programmers have done is made a realistic environment in which a variety of things can be done.
What scares me is how many of the self-appointed moralists in the world have clearly picked this game up and immediately gone around slaughtering women instead of following the game's plot.
Don't be stupid. The guy in the game is amoral. He does only what you make him do. You make him hit a woman, and kick her until she bleeds to death, that's your affair.
What you have to worry about is the fact that people choose to make him do those things, over and over again. And then cry about how nasty the programmers are.
"The player is rewarded for attacking a woman, pushing her to the ground, kicking her repeatedly and then ultimately killing her, shooting her over and over again."
Has he actually ever seen GTA? Beyond someone giving him an outraged briefing?
There is absolutely no difference in reward between assaulting a male and assaulting a female. You can't assault them differently, you don't get more or less money, there is no difference.
Now, were it to only allow you to assault a given gender or race, that'd be on
I'm also glad that he doesn't simply cry "BAN ALL THE GAMES," but I think that it's not that game companies responsibility to raise children. Parents should decide if a game is appropriate for their children, leaving those of us who are older than 18 to decide for ourselves whether or not we want to play violent games like Manhunt or GTA.
I dont want censorship of anything. Guidelines and laws pertaining to its usage, sure, but those are already in place. Technicaly no person under the age of 18 is allowed to buy a M rated game, and is that way for a reason. GTA is rated M, so what are we worried about. Enforce the laws we have now before you make new ones.
Uh the game doesn't require mass murder to "complete". When you're killing lots of people it's usually a "war" - they aren't really civilians - they're armed, they'd shoot you if you don't shoot them. Sure there are the optional kill gang member missions, but they actually make the game _harder_ to complete - since they'll always shoot at you after that (which makes it harder to do some missions).
There's plenty else to do with GTA3. You could be doing stunts with cars or planes. You could be an ambulance driver. Or a cab driver. Or a fireman. Or a cop. One of the hardest missions was the optional ambulance mission. Complete it for infinite run.
In the first GTAIII you could fly the dodo, do loop the loops, fly behind the mountains. You could get on the lighthouse with a boat too, if you know how:). In vice city there are motorbikes, helicopters and other stuff to play with.
If Senator Lieberman actually played GTA3 and the only thing he found out about GTA3 is attacking random women on the street for the few bucks they have, then it reflects poorly on him or the company he keeps.
Just because you can rip heads off dolls/action figures don't make em bad toys.
Think of GTA3 as cops and robbers. And you do get to play both (but mainly the robber - hey it's called GTA for a reason;) ).
I'm not saying GTA3 is suitable for all kids or people. But I know a few kids and many adults who'd be fine playing it.
sure you CAN do that but there's a good chance the cops will lock you up if you do, wasting the mission you were currently on - PUNISHING the player rather than rewarding. and there's no distinction between a woman or a regular other character walking on the roads in gta in this aspect either.
maybe it's just HIM that enjoys beating up women in gta(thus getting a 'reward' from beating them up).
shouldn't it be illeagal for them to lie about such things? soon he has a memo 'full of names of people who enjoy watching women beaten up'?
You have no idea how much I hate men because of what I've learned in GTA! I'm able to gun them down with an Uzi, run them over with a car, or even take out a chainsaw and cut them to pieces! In fact, I think I'm going to go take out a few masculine vagina oppressors RIGHT NOW!
Grand Theft Auto has always made any type of killing rewarding given the person has some cash on them. But killing people always comes with risk and doesn't make enough money to make it a viable way of going through the game. In fact, it becomes boring. Most of the time you'll really want to drive through town without even denting your car or attracting the police. The most reward comes from role playing your part as a bad guy and killing other bad guys! Imagine that...
Expcting a US Senator that reads the paper and watches the news, but does not play video games (in my own haven't RTFA estimation), to intelligently comment on the content and intent of a specific game, is a bit ludicrous.
So since gamers of the 80s grew up with games where you're constantly saving princesses, does that mean that generation is respectful, helpful and courteous towards women? Absolutely not. These bullshit arguments are always easy to deflate when you invert them.
Here's probably the biggest right-leaning Democrat to come around in a long time and has a major history of criticizing the entertainment industry. So when he goes to write a book, what's the first title he thinks of? Joe and Hadassah's Excellent Adventure. Granted a staffer/lawyer/publisher convinced him to change it to Amazing Adventure, but still. One side of his mouth he's criticizing games for teaching our youth to denegrate women, on the other side he's parodying (and giving tacit approval) of a movie that glorifies being stupid. I just wonder about this guy.
And then, since he was sorta surging in one of the NH polls yesterday, he claims he's doing well, because... he's "got joe-mentum". that sounds like something Jon Stewart and co-horts at the Daily Show would come up with.
Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure doesn't glorify being stupid. The main thrust of the story is that yes, they start out stupid, but if they don't get smart, fast, the whole world is doomed. How does that glorify being stupid? They just needed a push in the right direction--Rufus just gave them the time machine. He didn't tell them what to do with it.
by Anonymous Coward
on Monday January 26 2004, @11:49AM (#8088802)
Doesn't the senator from CT know that you can do the same thing to men of all different ethnicities in GTA3?
There's no discrimination here. GTA3 is a utopia of equality, where all cultures and genders can be run down with cars, thrown the ground, beaten, and shot at point blank range with a shotgun.
He should really have played the game before making such careless comments.
... and sometimes dem virtual hoes need bitchslappin' to the floor. This is bullshit. You can ice guys in GTA too, so it's an equal opportunity slap-em-up.
Yes, that's an important point, and one that many people seem to miss. It's horrible behaviour in general, not horrible behaviour against women exclusively.
Sure, it's probably not good to have a role model who's like that, but this idea that people can't think for themselves is starting to get ridiculous.
The unrealistic aspect is that your guy has 100 HP to the standard-man-on-the-street's 15 or so, so your guy can do a lot of things most people wouldn't, and survive the resulting beatings. But that's because it's a game; game chars are often overpowered that way because frankly, playing a real human being sucks.
(Some day perhaps it will be viable; but many has been the time I jump off of something only to discover that it was farther to the ground then I thought, beca
"You ought to see one called Grand Theft Auto. The player is rewarded for attacking a woman, pushing her to the ground, kicking her repeatedly and then ultimately killing her, shooting her over and over again."
There's a game out there, it's a very popular game, it's called Crazy Taxi. You are a taxi driver trying to get people from point A to point B. Wanna know what happens if you run over somebody? Nothing! People magically jump out of the way! If you bang into another car, *bang*, nothing really happens. So, in playing this game, you develop reflexes that cause you to drive in a straight line, and not care about pedestrians as they don't cause you any problems.
In GTA3, yeah you can kill some little old lady, but you're not being rewarded for it, you're being rewarded for making the game significantly harder for yourself. If you go driving through the streets in GTA just like you are in Crazy Taxi, and you drive towards a pedestrian, they don't magically get out of your way. They get squished, just like in real life. And when you drive over them, you start having to worry about police, just like real life. Run over somebody in viewing range of a police officer, and he will try to arrest you, and if he succeeds you lose a lot of things that you have acquired so far. Just like in real life. If you try to get away and wreck your car during the chase, you can cause devastation of vehicles and people's lives, just like real life. The result? Reflexively, you avoid running over pedestrians like mad. In a split second, if somebody darts out in front of your car, you're going to swerve. (That happens to be the right thing to do.)
So I have to ask you, Joey, what is really better? Avoiding showing adults realistic consequences to the choices they make, or sanitizing the game of all 'disturbing' violence and instead using video game influence to teach you that nobody can be hurt?
He should have referred to the mission "Waste the Wife", an assination mission where a guy wants the wife dead, and hires you to kill her.
I hereby volunteer to be a researcher for his propaganda department. It'll be hard work, playing those games all day looking for things that can be spun for a specific demographic, but I'll suffer by somehow.:)
He should have referred to the mission "Waste the Wife", an assination mission where a guy wants the wife dead, and hires you to kill her. Yeah...that one actually sticks out in my mind, because the wife seems more or less innocent (I don't remember if they mention why she's wanted dead) and genuinely horrified that this maniac keeps bashing into her car...I don't think she begs for mercy, but does say "Oh my god!!!" a few times. (Plus, it's not an easy mission, usually you have to swap cars halfway throug
It's about playing to the audience. I'm sure these women would not have cared if Lieberman went on about the whole "kill the haitians" remark in the game. He knew what would get them on his side.
I hear next week he'll be speaking at a pedestrians meeting.:)
Finally, someone has admitted (and I would say emphasized) that they have the right to do such things. Huzzah to Lieberman for at least leaving censorship and "stricter video game laws" out of it and merely decrying the video game itself. Rare to see such politics these days.
I've recently discovered the joys of GTA Vice City. Its taken me a while because initially I was put of by the gratuity of violence. That kind of thing is not really my bag. However I do find the game highly entertaining and enjoyable due to the whole atmosphere of the game. I still get a personal feeling of guilt when I "accidentally" run someone over. There is a "lot" more to the game than just killing innocent passers by, and treating women badly.
Violence has been around forever, we all know this. For years people have complained that certain movies and videos have made people go out and do things they shouldnt. The usual argument is, to suggest that it should be the parents who control the exposure of children to these things. I agree very much with this standpoint, but the problem is there are a lot of parents out their who do not follow this logic. And quite often children find ways around their parents rules.
What can realistically be done to ensure that parents take the responsibility for exposure of unsuitable material to minors?
Don't forget kids, GTA killed your wife, shot your dog, repossessed your house, shattered your septic tank, stole $2 billion from Metallica, stole your girlfriend, and is the single cause of all the evils in society. Honestly. I'm not kidding.
On the serious side though, this game is rated M, that means your children, the kids that Lieberman is so sure are being desecrated by this game, are the same children that should NOT be playing the game. That's what the M rating is for.
So before you allow the government to control your children for you, why don't you try to raise them yourselves. How about you take an active interest in their life? Maybe keep tabs on what they're doing and what games they're playing. If your kid likes to sacrifice woodland animals, don't buy him GTA, and if you notice he's got it, find out how he got it and take it away from him. There is no substitution for good parenting, and allowing the government to parent for you is a surefire way to end up in a 1984-esque society.
GTA doesn't kill people. GTA doesn't teach people to kill. America's Army (the game) is just as efficient a society demoralizer as any other violent game, except it's sanctioned by the US. You'll note you never hear people complain that AA is too violent. It's ok to be violent when you're killing commies and nazis, but it's not ok to be violent when you have the ability (note, have the ability - there is much more to GTA than killing women and cops) to do things society frowns on.
In AA, you could kill your team-mates. That is just as demoralizing.
--- What preceeds is nothing more than opinion. If you take it for more than that, it is your own fault.
Don't forget kids, GTA killed your wife, shot your dog, repossessed your house, shattered your septic tank, stole $2 billion from Metallica, stole your girlfriend, and is the single cause of all the evils in society. Honestly. I'm not kidding
/me puts this to a country tune. p.s. that bastard has a wife and a girlfriend. serves him right for getting it all taken away
Don't forget kids, GTA killed your wife, shot your dog, repossessed your house, shattered your septic tank, stole $2 billion from Metallica, stole your girlfriend, and is the single cause of all the evils in society.
Get a steel guitar and a fiddle and throw in something about crashing your pickup truck and I think we've found the next Country Western Hit.
Ok, to contextualize: I am no fan of Lieberman, nor of censorship.
Yet, I'm surprised that gamers, from fanboy populated forums to print media, generally have this completely defensive attitude to any kind of censorship or even discussion of violence in video games. It's as if we've been "Pavlovically" trained to automatically shriek "First Amendment" whenever we hear someone talking about excessive violence in games. I really have yet to see some intelligent discourse on why violence in games is acceptable. Why is that we can simulate purposeless murder on mass scale like exhibited in GTA and its ilk, but most of us would consider it abhorrent for a game to have a player able to enact even one simulated rape or pedophilic sexual encounter? What makes the simulated shooting down of 30 innocent people in a video game more socially acceptable?
Basically, what we haven't done is build up an apologetics of sorts for video games. We have no choice but to shallowly cite the First Amendment and quickly blame parents when people like Lieberman challenge us because we have yet to collectively think of anything better to say. Instead of developing a system of apologetics, our response is to release crap like Manhunt. What kind of piss-poor answer is that? It's not answering the cultural call to explain the violence, it's pushing back, but harder. That won't ever work and does nothing but to reinforce the idea that video games have "made" us violent. Sure, Lieberman and likeminded politicians would be saying the same thing even if we had an intelligent system of apologetics for video games (they are, after all, politicians), but I think it would, in general society, rob Lieberman of credibility nonetheless.
So, who's up for the challenge? Why is GTA's mass murder "better" than simulated rape?
What makes the simulated shooting down of 30 innocent people in a video game more socially acceptable?
Basically, we as a society are desensitized to seeing acted out death; that is to say, watching someone die but they don't really die. Movies, tv shows, games, etc, all show people dying in front of us, but we know they aren't really dead...it's just a virtual world or the person is acting.
Sexual crimes, on the other hand, we have not been desensitized to. American society is becoming less sensitive to sex (see Britney, Christina and half the women falling out of their dresses on the Golden Globes), but we aren't comfortable with sex to the point that we'll expose people to it and say "That's alright, it's just fake".
In addition, rape and pedophilia are most definitely considered 'icky'. We don't like seeing, hearing or talking about them. Death is more okay, mostly because it happens in legitimate forms all the time ("Grandpa died of old age yesterday"..."Fluffy died from being hit by that car"). Sexual assault doesn't have to happen, death does, so it doesn't take the same toll on our psyches.
One reason I voted for Nader in 2000 is I feared what would become of free expression with Joe Lieberman and Tipper Gore in positions of leadership and Frank Zappa not around to help in the fight.
This year, my vote is there for the Democrats to lose, but if Lieberman is the nominee they'll need to do a lot of work to win it.
We can't have the corrupting influence of video games infiltrating our society.. What happens when a violent video gamer makes it into public office.. Why we could have WAR as a form of making profit or something... absolutely horrendous!!!
Thanks to Yahoo/Reuters for its article discussing Senator Joseph Lieberman's comments regarding Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto at a recent women's forum at Dartmouth College.
It should come as no surprise that hes making these comments at a women's forum, and making a particular point of how this game 'promotes' abusing women; this always pisses people off. He negelects to mention you can get 'rewarded' (if getting a couple points and cops chasing after you is a reward) for assaulting anyone/thing in the game. By Lieberman's logic, any of us who've play GTA should be beating the shit out of each other right about now since we never learned respect for other men/women. Honestly, this strikes me less as an honest swipe at GTA rather than a thinly veiled attempt to win over women voters by appearing to oppose an 'misogynist' video game, and so portraying the game in a rather singularly unpleasant light that it promotes abuse of women. Same old 'anti-misogynist' rhetoric we've been hearing for years in this PC world.
OK I'm not american and I don't live in America, so all this election circus it's just entertainement for me;
well maybe it's just because I don't know enough about US politics, but I could even think that sen. Lieberman is doing his crusade against violence in videogames (he started yelling against Mortal Kombat AFAIK) just because 1) to be against violence always sells, 2) people who play videogames are usually young and they can't vote (I know there are plenty of grown up videogamers around, myself for
The classic example is that screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre and inciting a panic is not protected speech. Everyone agrees with that.
Asking videogame producers to use due judgement and produce products that are socially responsible is not censorship and is not wrong. The videogame industry is moving towards the same inane and worthless content that network television and cable is moving towards -- taking Liberman's advice may be helpful in the long run.
Its funny when you realize that these people think that videogames is for kids/young adults. A medium that was once targetted primarily to youths has now grown just like the orignal target audience has. We are pong generation all grown up we have jobs we have families and dammit we want our f'nin video games.
Are we going to let our 5 year old play Manhunt.. probably not, but should we have the government decide what we can play and what we should not. Hell no.
If Lieberman has a problem with violent video games then get the retailers to be more strict in enforcing the ratings. Video games should be classified like movies are classified, get rid of the game specific ratings and adopt the movie rating system. So then parents will have a better clue what there kids should play..
"Hmmm rated Teen.. what the hell does that mean.. rated R, well that means my kid isn't going to watch this."
Lieberman is clutching at anything he can to try and get votes right now. Now he's pandering to women's groups that he typically would avoid like the plague.
Whenever he wants to complain, he pulls the GTA card and claims that it's anti-women. Funny how my wife doesn't see that when she watches me playing the GTA games...
Here's the key: keep the rating system and educate parents so they get off their asses and pay attention to the ratings. The next time I see a parent buying Vice City for their 10-year-old, I swear I'm going to start flinging other games at them until they pay attention...
I'm still undecided on which Democrat I'm going to support for President, but I know damn well it will never be Lieberman. Media whore bastard...
Okay, I'm currently playing through GTAIII for the first time, and I can (as most of us can) that you kill, maim and pillage many, many more guys than chicks. I don't think I've come across a single mission, as a matter of fact, where you were supposed to kill a chick. Yeah, you can grab a hooker, go somewhere private, watch the car bounce (while you two sit in the front seats, not moving), and afterwards beat the hell out of her, but that's the limit so far for violence towards women. Every OTHER missions is "go kill this guy that's been following/dealing/stealing/snitching on me". In all fairness, this game is much more geared towards killing men.
I don't know if Lieberman's statements are outright disingenuous or merely the result of yet more incompetent research about this game, but he grossly mischaracterizes this element of the game. No, GTA3 won't be mistaken for Barbie Horse Adventure anytime soon, but you don't get "rewarded" for brutally murdering a woman and mutilating her dead body. If you kill a pedestrian, which requires no more amount of violence than it would in real life, then they drop whatever money they had on them, the amount of which is a tinkle in the bucket compared to what you can earn even by driving people around in (violence-free) taxi missions.
You can choose to kill them with a bat or sword instead of a gun, and the result is appropriately gruesome enough for most normal people to either opt for a cleaner way to do it, or to just not do it altogether. You can be brutal, but there isn't a significant benefit, and it often gets you in trouble with the police--a fact that these people always fail to mention whenever this subject comes up.
Apparently Sen. Lieberman is not at all bothered by the fact that you can beat up and kill male characters in the game too.
This reminds me of something I saw earlier today. I was in a conference room and saw leftover presentation materials from an earlier meeting, on the topic of crime prevention. The statistics included such facts as "82% of society will be victims of violent crime in their lifetime" and "3 out of 4 women will be victims of violent crime in their lifetime".
This irritated me. If the percentage for women is 75% but the overall is 82, then for men it must be nearly 90%. But of course the presentation did not say anything about this; 3 out of 4 women being victims of crime sounds much worse than 9 out of 10 men.
Why can't a society value all human life, instead of taking this attitude as Lieberman has that crime against women is bad, but crime against men would be fine?
You ought to see one called Grand Theft Auto. The player is rewarded for attacking a woman, pushing her to the ground, kicking her repeatedly and then ultimately killing her, shooting her over and over again.
I won't comment on the violent games issue itself, but on a purely factual, objective level, couldn't this sort of quote be seen as libellous?
While the comment itself is true, in context it is being presented as a synopsis of the entire game, ie: this is what the game's about, isn't it horrible? That harms the reputation of the game, the developer, the publisher, and to some extent the millions of perfectly well-balanced people who play the game.
Apperently, you just don't get it. Both abortions and video games come down to a single point: choice. Someone chooses to do something that you may find abhorrent (like have an abortion, or kill a virtual hooker for cash), but which doesn't affect you. Government shouldn't intervene, then. That person is making a choice about their own behavior. A choice that should be respected.
Normally I wouldn't get sucked into a debate like this, but your statement makes no sense. If someone neglects to feed their infant and it dies, I will ask the Government to criminalize that behavior even though it "doesn't affect me". Furthermore, Lieberman was not calling for legislation (at least in this article) to ban games, and in fact explictly mentions that these companies have to right to produce them. He is simply asking game developers to be more responsible - which is a perfectly legitimate opinion to have. You don't need to be a Puritan to find the content of that game objectionable.
When it comes to cases like that, majority rules, and the majority has decided that killing fetuses should not be prohibited (even if they personally do not like the idea of abortion)
Although this post is obvious flamebait, it's worth pointing out that at no time has a majority of people in this country voted to allow abortion (unless you count the very democratic 5-4 vote on the Supreme Court). In fact, this country has a very long history of criminalizing abortion going back to English common law, and m
So long as he isn't making it illegal... (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to agree with him. I've played Grand theft auto, and I belive people should be horified about the kind of guy they are playing. Horified that they can find in themselves the type of person who would do that, even in a game. Never mind that it is a game and they can recignise the difference between a game and real life, they can do that in a game.
It isn't right to make that type of game illegal (unless someone proves byond all doupt that it really does lead everyone to bad behaviour...), but that doesn't mean it is right to enjoy the game.
Re:So long as he isn't making it illegal... (Score:5, Insightful)
What you have to worry about is the fact that people choose to make him do those things, over and over again. And then cry about how nasty the programmers are.
All the programmers have done is made a realistic environment in which a variety of things can be done.
What scares me is how many of the self-appointed moralists in the world have clearly picked this game up and immediately gone around slaughtering women instead of following the game's plot.
Parent
Re:So long as he isn't making it illegal... (Score:5, Insightful)
What you have to worry about is the fact that people choose to make him do those things, over and over again. And then cry about how nasty the programmers are.
Yes, but can you give her flowers?
-Sean
Parent
Re:So long as he isn't making it illegal... (Score:5, Funny)
You can try, but she casually avoids you. I found that to be quite realistic.
Parent
Women Only (Score:3, Insightful)
Has he actually ever seen GTA? Beyond someone giving him an outraged briefing?
There is absolutely no difference in reward between assaulting a male and assaulting a female. You can't assault them differently, you don't get more or less money, there is no difference.
Now, were it to only allow you to assault a given gender or race, that'd be on
Re:So long as he isn't making it illegal... (Score:2, Insightful)
NO (Score:2)
Mirrors the player. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's plenty else to do with GTA3. You could be doing stunts with cars or planes. You could be an ambulance driver. Or a cab driver. Or a fireman. Or a cop. One of the hardest missions was the optional ambulance mission. Complete it for infinite run.
In the first GTAIII you could fly the dodo, do loop the loops, fly behind the mountains. You could get on the lighthouse with a boat too, if you know how
If Senator Lieberman actually played GTA3 and the only thing he found out about GTA3 is attacking random women on the street for the few bucks they have, then it reflects poorly on him or the company he keeps.
Just because you can rip heads off dolls/action figures don't make em bad toys.
Think of GTA3 as cops and robbers. And you do get to play both (but mainly the robber - hey it's called GTA for a reason
I'm not saying GTA3 is suitable for all kids or people. But I know a few kids and many adults who'd be fine playing it.
But some Senators may need parental guidance.
Parent
rewarded? (Score:5, Insightful)
sure you CAN do that but there's a good chance the cops will lock you up if you do, wasting the mission you were currently on - PUNISHING the player rather than rewarding. and there's no distinction between a woman or a regular other character walking on the roads in gta in this aspect either.
maybe it's just HIM that enjoys beating up women in gta(thus getting a 'reward' from beating them up).
shouldn't it be illeagal for them to lie about such things? soon he has a memo 'full of names of people who enjoy watching women beaten up'?
This guy is totally right (Score:4, Funny)
"How to raise children without TV and Video Games" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"How to raise children without TV and Video Gam (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, except that it would be pure fiction. Many people will agree it is a good idea, but few or none will actually live it.
Re:"How to raise children without TV and Video Gam (Score:3, Funny)
What he's missing: (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What he's missing: (Score:2, Informative)
Perils of Pauline (Score:5, Insightful)
Lieberman is schitzo... (Score:5, Insightful)
And then, since he was sorta surging in one of the NH polls yesterday, he claims he's doing well, because... he's "got joe-mentum". that sounds like something Jon Stewart and co-horts at the Daily Show would come up with.
Re:Lieberman is schitzo... (Score:2)
Oh COME now, (Score:3, Funny)
There's no discrimination here. GTA3 is a utopia of equality, where all cultures and genders can be run down with cars, thrown the ground, beaten, and shot at point blank range with a shotgun.
He should really have played the game before making such careless comments.
Really.
Respect has to be earned... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is bullshit. You can ice guys in GTA too, so it's an equal opportunity slap-em-up.
Re:Respect has to be earned... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, it's probably not good to have a role model who's like that, but this idea that people can't think for themselves is starting to get ridiculous.
i've got a comprimise (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:i've got a comprimise (Score:3, Insightful)
The unrealistic aspect is that your guy has 100 HP to the standard-man-on-the-street's 15 or so, so your guy can do a lot of things most people wouldn't, and survive the resulting beatings. But that's because it's a game; game chars are often overpowered that way because frankly, playing a real human being sucks.
(Some day perhaps it will be viable; but many has been the time I jump off of something only to discover that it was farther to the ground then I thought, beca
Know what would be more disturbing? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a game out there, it's a very popular game, it's called Crazy Taxi. You are a taxi driver trying to get people from point A to point B. Wanna know what happens if you run over somebody? Nothing! People magically jump out of the way! If you bang into another car, *bang*, nothing really happens. So, in playing this game, you develop reflexes that cause you to drive in a straight line, and not care about pedestrians as they don't cause you any problems.
In GTA3, yeah you can kill some little old lady, but you're not being rewarded for it, you're being rewarded for making the game significantly harder for yourself. If you go driving through the streets in GTA just like you are in Crazy Taxi, and you drive towards a pedestrian, they don't magically get out of your way. They get squished, just like in real life. And when you drive over them, you start having to worry about police, just like real life. Run over somebody in viewing range of a police officer, and he will try to arrest you, and if he succeeds you lose a lot of things that you have acquired so far. Just like in real life. If you try to get away and wreck your car during the chase, you can cause devastation of vehicles and people's lives, just like real life. The result? Reflexively, you avoid running over pedestrians like mad. In a split second, if somebody darts out in front of your car, you're going to swerve. (That happens to be the right thing to do.)
So I have to ask you, Joey, what is really better? Avoiding showing adults realistic consequences to the choices they make, or sanitizing the game of all 'disturbing' violence and instead using video game influence to teach you that nobody can be hurt?
Heh (Score:3, Funny)
He should have referred to the mission "Waste the Wife", an assination mission where a guy wants the wife dead, and hires you to kill her.
I hereby volunteer to be a researcher for his propaganda department. It'll be hard work, playing those games all day looking for things that can be spun for a specific demographic, but I'll suffer by somehow.
Re:Heh (Score:2)
Yeah...that one actually sticks out in my mind, because the wife seems more or less innocent (I don't remember if they mention why she's wanted dead) and genuinely horrified that this maniac keeps bashing into her car...I don't think she begs for mercy, but does say "Oh my god!!!" a few times. (Plus, it's not an easy mission, usually you have to swap cars halfway throug
Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
I hear next week he'll be speaking at a pedestrians meeting.
Thank God (Score:2, Redundant)
--Stephen
Parents responsible ... Yes ... but how ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Violence has been around forever, we all know this. For years people have complained that certain movies and videos have made people go out and do things they shouldnt. The usual argument is, to suggest that it should be the parents who control the exposure of children to these things. I agree very much with this standpoint, but the problem is there are a lot of parents out their who do not follow this logic. And quite often children find ways around their parents rules.
What can realistically be done to ensure that parents take the responsibility for exposure of unsuitable material to minors?
It's all GTAs fault! (Score:5, Insightful)
On the serious side though, this game is rated M, that means your children, the kids that Lieberman is so sure are being desecrated by this game, are the same children that should NOT be playing the game. That's what the M rating is for.
So before you allow the government to control your children for you, why don't you try to raise them yourselves. How about you take an active interest in their life? Maybe keep tabs on what they're doing and what games they're playing. If your kid likes to sacrifice woodland animals, don't buy him GTA, and if you notice he's got it, find out how he got it and take it away from him. There is no substitution for good parenting, and allowing the government to parent for you is a surefire way to end up in a 1984-esque society.
GTA doesn't kill people. GTA doesn't teach people to kill. America's Army (the game) is just as efficient a society demoralizer as any other violent game, except it's sanctioned by the US. You'll note you never hear people complain that AA is too violent. It's ok to be violent when you're killing commies and nazis, but it's not ok to be violent when you have the ability (note, have the ability - there is much more to GTA than killing women and cops) to do things society frowns on.
In AA, you could kill your team-mates. That is just as demoralizing.
--- What preceeds is nothing more than opinion. If you take it for more than that, it is your own fault.
Re:It's all GTAs fault! (Score:2)
p.s. that bastard has a wife and a girlfriend. serves him right for getting it all taken away
Re:It's all GTAs fault! (Score:3, Funny)
Get a steel guitar and a fiddle and throw in something about crashing your pickup truck and I think we've found the next Country Western Hit.
Simulated Mass Murder v. Simulated Pedophilia/Rape (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet, I'm surprised that gamers, from fanboy populated forums to print media, generally have this completely defensive attitude to any kind of censorship or even discussion of violence in video games. It's as if we've been "Pavlovically" trained to automatically shriek "First Amendment" whenever we hear someone talking about excessive violence in games. I really have yet to see some intelligent discourse on why violence in games is acceptable. Why is that we can simulate purposeless murder on mass scale like exhibited in GTA and its ilk, but most of us would consider it abhorrent for a game to have a player able to enact even one simulated rape or pedophilic sexual encounter? What makes the simulated shooting down of 30 innocent people in a video game more socially acceptable?
Basically, what we haven't done is build up an apologetics of sorts for video games. We have no choice but to shallowly cite the First Amendment and quickly blame parents when people like Lieberman challenge us because we have yet to collectively think of anything better to say. Instead of developing a system of apologetics, our response is to release crap like Manhunt. What kind of piss-poor answer is that? It's not answering the cultural call to explain the violence, it's pushing back, but harder. That won't ever work and does nothing but to reinforce the idea that video games have "made" us violent. Sure, Lieberman and likeminded politicians would be saying the same thing even if we had an intelligent system of apologetics for video games (they are, after all, politicians), but I think it would, in general society, rob Lieberman of credibility nonetheless.
So, who's up for the challenge? Why is GTA's mass murder "better" than simulated rape?
Because sex is still relatively taboo in America. (Score:2)
Re:Simulated Mass Murder v. Simulated Pedophilia/R (Score:4, Insightful)
Basically, we as a society are desensitized to seeing acted out death; that is to say, watching someone die but they don't really die. Movies, tv shows, games, etc, all show people dying in front of us, but we know they aren't really dead...it's just a virtual world or the person is acting.
Sexual crimes, on the other hand, we have not been desensitized to. American society is becoming less sensitive to sex (see Britney, Christina and half the women falling out of their dresses on the Golden Globes), but we aren't comfortable with sex to the point that we'll expose people to it and say "That's alright, it's just fake".
In addition, rape and pedophilia are most definitely considered 'icky'. We don't like seeing, hearing or talking about them. Death is more okay, mostly because it happens in legitimate forms all the time ("Grandpa died of old age yesterday"..."Fluffy died from being hit by that car"). Sexual assault doesn't have to happen, death does, so it doesn't take the same toll on our psyches.
--trb
Parent
Why I'm on the Fence (Score:2)
This year, my vote is there for the Democrats to lose, but if Lieberman is the nominee they'll need to do a lot of work to win it.
It's so true! (Score:2)
The venue and words are not coincidence (Score:3, Insightful)
It should come as no surprise that hes making these comments at a women's forum, and making a particular point of how this game 'promotes' abusing women; this always pisses people off. He negelects to mention you can get 'rewarded' (if getting a couple points and cops chasing after you is a reward) for assaulting anyone/thing in the game. By Lieberman's logic, any of us who've play GTA should be beating the shit out of each other right about now since we never learned respect for other men/women. Honestly, this strikes me less as an honest swipe at GTA rather than a thinly veiled attempt to win over women voters by appearing to oppose an 'misogynist' video game, and so portraying the game in a rather singularly unpleasant light that it promotes abuse of women. Same old 'anti-misogynist' rhetoric we've been hearing for years in this PC world.
Easy target (Score:2)
well maybe it's just because I don't know enough about US politics, but I could even think that sen. Lieberman is doing his crusade against violence in videogames (he started yelling against Mortal Kombat AFAIK) just because 1) to be against violence always sells, 2) people who play videogames are usually young and they can't vote (I know there are plenty of grown up videogamers around, myself for
Lieberman isn't saying anything unreasonable (Score:3, Interesting)
The classic example is that screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre and inciting a panic is not protected speech. Everyone agrees with that.
Asking videogame producers to use due judgement and produce products that are socially responsible is not censorship and is not wrong. The videogame industry is moving towards the same inane and worthless content that network television and cable is moving towards -- taking Liberman's advice may be helpful in the long run.
Re:Lieberman isn't saying anything unreasonable (Score:3, Interesting)
The classic example is that screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre and inciting a panic is not protected speech. Everyone agrees with that.
No they don't.
Well maybe they agree that it isn't protected speach, but not that it shouldn't be.
We aren't kids anymore (Score:3, Insightful)
Are we going to let our 5 year old play Manhunt.. probably not, but should we have the government decide what we can play and what we should not. Hell no.
If Lieberman has a problem with violent video games then get the retailers to be more strict in enforcing the ratings. Video games should be classified like movies are classified, get rid of the game specific ratings and adopt the movie rating system. So then parents will have a better clue what there kids should play..
"Hmmm rated Teen.. what the hell does that mean.. rated R, well that means my kid isn't going to watch this."
Just ignore him (Score:4, Interesting)
Whenever he wants to complain, he pulls the GTA card and claims that it's anti-women. Funny how my wife doesn't see that when she watches me playing the GTA games...
Here's the key: keep the rating system and educate parents so they get off their asses and pay attention to the ratings. The next time I see a parent buying Vice City for their 10-year-old, I swear I'm going to start flinging other games at them until they pay attention...
I'm still undecided on which Democrat I'm going to support for President, but I know damn well it will never be Lieberman. Media whore bastard...
Hold on a minute... (Score:3, Informative)
--trb
God, this disinformation cheeses me off... (Score:3, Insightful)
You can choose to kill them with a bat or sword instead of a gun, and the result is appropriately gruesome enough for most normal people to either opt for a cleaner way to do it, or to just not do it altogether. You can be brutal, but there isn't a significant benefit, and it often gets you in trouble with the police--a fact that these people always fail to mention whenever this subject comes up.
Why is it always women? (Score:3, Interesting)
Apparently Sen. Lieberman is not at all bothered by the fact that you can beat up and kill male characters in the game too.
This reminds me of something I saw earlier today. I was in a conference room and saw leftover presentation materials from an earlier meeting, on the topic of crime prevention. The statistics included such facts as "82% of society will be victims of violent crime in their lifetime" and "3 out of 4 women will be victims of violent crime in their lifetime".
This irritated me. If the percentage for women is 75% but the overall is 82, then for men it must be nearly 90%. But of course the presentation did not say anything about this; 3 out of 4 women being victims of crime sounds much worse than 9 out of 10 men.
Why can't a society value all human life, instead of taking this attitude as Lieberman has that crime against women is bad, but crime against men would be fine?
Libellous? (Score:3, Insightful)
While the comment itself is true, in context it is being presented as a synopsis of the entire game, ie: this is what the game's about, isn't it horrible? That harms the reputation of the game, the developer, the publisher, and to some extent the millions of perfectly well-balanced people who play the game.
Someone convince me that this isn't libel.
Libel with malice too, it seems.
Not about video games (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Normally I wouldn't get sucked into a debate like this, but your statement makes no sense. If someone neglects to feed their infant and it dies, I will ask the Government to criminalize that behavior even though it "doesn't affect me". Furthermore, Lieberman was not calling for legislation (at least in this article) to ban games, and in fact explictly mentions that these companies have to right to produce them. He is simply asking game developers to be more responsible - which is a perfectly legitimate opinion to have. You don't need to be a Puritan to find the content of that game objectionable.
Parent
Re:Just don't get it. (Score:3, Interesting)
Although this post is obvious flamebait, it's worth pointing out that at no time has a majority of people in this country voted to allow abortion (unless you count the very democratic 5-4 vote on the Supreme Court). In fact, this country has a very long history of criminalizing abortion going back to English common law, and m