Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Games Government Entertainment Politics

Senator Clinton Slams GTA 1493

Posted by Zonk
from the least-favorite-bandwagon dept.
Joining the ranks of such luminaries as Jack Thompson and Governor Blagojevich, GamesIndustry.biz has the word that Senator Hillary Clinton has joined right wing advocates in decrying the gaming industry as a paragon of loose morals and corrupting influences. From the article: "Children are playing a game that encourages them to have sex with prostitutes and then murder them...This is a silent epidemic of media desensitisation that teaches kids it's OK to diss people because they are a woman, they're a different colour or they're from a different place." Commentary available at The Australian. Update: 03/30 02:22 GMT by T : Thanks to reader mantle_etching, here is a link to the entire speech as delivered, so you can judge its content for yourself.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Senator Clinton Slams GTA

Comments Filter:
  • by fembots (753724) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @02:39PM (#12079475) Homepage
    You think killing prostitutes are bad? Wait until you see soldiers team-killing each other in CounterStrike.
    • by prell (584580) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @02:43PM (#12079577) Homepage
      Are there any studies that link games to real life violence, discrimination, or any altered behavior at all?
      • by Anonymous Coward
        Billary is doing this to create the illusion that she is centrist for a run in '08
      • by CSMastermind (847625) <freight_train10@hotmail.com> on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @02:56PM (#12079935)
        http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html [apa.org]Fac ts versus Myths about video game violence The guy covers the main points about video game violence. In short, yes there are. But there are more studies that show that children are likely to become violent if their parents are negligent or violent.
        • by mark-t (151149) <markt@ l y n x.bc.ca> on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:45PM (#12080985) Journal
          Actually, the two circumstances are highly related.

          People tend to mimic what they are exposed to. It is the same pscyhological pattern that first enabled us to learn how to communicate when we were little, and although there is some dissipation of this phenomenon as we grow older, it never completely goes away.

          Sufficient exposure to violence, even if entirely virtual, will tend to result in more violent behaviour in the individual. The amount of exposure to violence that a person can tolerate with no outwardly obvious effects ever manifesting varies greatly from individual to individual, but is fundamentally linked to the pscyhological bent that all human beings have to mimic their surroundings, as I mentioned above. Because, as I said before, this phenomenon dissipates somewhat with age, younger children _TEND TO BE_ more susceptible to influence caused by exposure to violence than older people.

          Because the impact varies so much from person to person, however, it's probably simply most appropriate to let a child's parent determine if they should be allowed to be exposed to the material. Obviously, video game stores are not going to be responsible for parenting other people's children, so it's probably reasonable for them to err on the side of caution. If the parent thinks it's okay, then the parent should get it for the kid himself.

      • by frikazoyd (845667) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @02:57PM (#12079961)
        I actually did some research on this for a paper a while back. The one study that I saw that was of any interest goes as follows:

        Two sets of children, same age, same geographical area, same school, kept separate as much as possible to prevent "polluting".

        Set A: Given video games to play for X hours a day.

        Set B: No video games.

        I can't remember for sure, I'd have to dig it up again, but I believe that Set B also was limited on their television intake.

        Results: Set A children angered more easily and were more prone to hitting each other in play. Set B children were more patient, hit each other less, and had calmer attitudes.

        At best though, this is only one study, so it was careful to point out that this drew a "correlation" between more violent play, quick tempers, and Video Games. They didn't list what games were played, or any details on the children, so results are dubious at best.

        When I find a link, I'll paste it.
        • by Skye16 (685048) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:24PM (#12080576)
          Do you at least know what age these children were? I could easily see a 5 or 6 year old being more violent after excessively violent video games and tv shows, but I'm not so sure about a 16 year old, unless they had completely horrible parenting.

          Parents really need to be more in tune with violence in video games. My step brother was about 11 and was very prone to violence (not against people, but he was all about breaking things and punching holes in the wall). My dad had just married to his mom, so he didn't feel he was exactly in a position to put this brat in his place, but the point is, the kid was violent and got angry entirely too easily. For Christmas, he got a PlayStation 2. I talked to my Dad at some point before hand and told him "no matter what you do, do NOT get Matt any games that are rated M, it's probably not in his best interests". Then I find out a few weeks later, my dad or stepmom went out and bought him GTA3.

          I do take exception to people saying video games are the root of all evil. But I completely agree when people say they could - in conjunction with other factors - cause a child with many more social problems (ie: violence and the like, or, at the least, improper anger management). I was infuriated that my father had bought this kid GTA3. Frankly, if you wouldn't trust them with a gun, they shouldn't be playing that type of video game. I honestly think it was the only time in my adult life I ever yelled at my father. I yelled so much my voice turned hoarse over it. Even aside from the problems Matt had with anger management and violent disposition, 11 year olds don't need to be playing video games where the purpose of the game is to drive around, steal cars, shoot people, kill cops and screw hookers. When you're mature enough, fine, but the kid wouldn't even brush his teeth or take a shower if you didn't make him do it.
        • by Some_Llama (763766) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:27PM (#12080633) Homepage Journal
          "Results: Set A children angered more easily and were more prone to hitting each other in play. Set B children were more patient, hit each other less, and had calmer attitudes."

          Makes sense, my daughter often punches her brother in the arm after he kills her for the 5th in CS with the awp on our LAN.

          Did the study show any correlation between games and outburts of profantiy? (like AWP WHORE!!)

        • by Ironsides (739422) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:41PM (#12080896) Homepage Journal
          Set A was boys and Set B was girls?
      • by leoboiko (462141)
        Short answer: there are some, but the methodology and conclusions are controversial. For some (biased but good) criticism favouring games, take a look at this book [amazon.com] if you can. From the studies cited in the book, it seems that people who are violent are likely to enjoy violent games, if they like games at all (which is seldom the case; in general they'd rather have the real thing). But people who are not violent do not become violent due to games.
      • by Humorously_Inept (777630) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:00PM (#12080024) Homepage
        It depends on who you ask. There are volumes of studies to both support and deny the assertion that video game violence trickles out into real life.

        Whereas private money used to fund research, it has now become research. Scientists and researchers, being that they are still human beings, are typically as close-minded as any fundies out there and they are as easily influenced by money, power, prestige and the need to protect that which they have achieved as the most corrupt politician.

        The scientific method is high school fodder. The new scienfitic method is as easily purchased as a loaf of bread.
      • by ArmenTanzarian (210418) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:07PM (#12080211) Homepage Journal
        I imagine the studies on this are like the studies on TV violence. The results are so varied and diametrically opposed to one another that each side can use the same study to prove their point.

        The end result, to any person who doesn't read the reports with an agenda, is that the studies are skewed based on the method of measurement. There's something akin to Heisenberg in Sociology (another guy with an 'H' name): that the results are changed by the observation and the phrasing of the survey question or definition of metrics.

        One funny case was in a home for violent boys. One set of boys got to watch gorey, violent TV and movies and the other set only PBS and screened shows. The boys who were forced to watch only non-violent TV ended up being so upset and violent that they finally forced the researcher to let them watch the shows they enjoyed again.
      • by jav1231 (539129)
        Anyone who thinks there is NO link to what you see/experience/read/hear/etc. and behavior is a complete moron. Even if you HAVE a degree. To think otherwise simply display's your "sign."
        I loath to agree with Hillary, and I'm fairly certain this is merely to give the illusion that she's a moderate, but comment on her position. Any attempt to argue that pre-teen boys can simply watch all this stuff and not be affected makes one look foolish.
    • by sgant (178166) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:12PM (#12080314) Homepage Journal
      Hey, I like GTA. It was a cool game when I had it...I mean, like anything got bored with it after a while.

      But no way is my 11 year old son going to play it.

      And last I checked, there ARE ratings on these games, like on movies. We don't need anything more do we? More laws? WTF?

      My son plays Mario and other games like that on his Gamecube. No, not the most exciting games in the world, but he likes them. We also don't have a TV other than the one that the Gamecube is hooked up on.

      No cable or even over-the-air TV. Because I'm making a statement? Yeah, kinda...I don't feel like paying 60 bucks a month for basic cable here from Comcast. And no antena can really pull down a broadcast. So, we've been without TV now for almost a year in the new house and guess what, we don't miss it.

      Sorry, got off on a tangent. This is common sense kind of stuff here folks, and Hillery is mainly just saying "hey, look at me...over here...yoo hoo...I've got something sort of controversal to say, yet not really". Yeah, I'm a little jaded.
  • by grub (11606) <slashdot@grub.net> on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @02:39PM (#12079478) Homepage Journal

    ... but did you ever notice that not a single politician slams Thief [eidosinteractive.com]?
  • I agree (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @02:39PM (#12079484)
    It is wrong to murder prostitutes after you have sex with them.

    Unless they charge more than $50, then its ok.

  • by garcia (6573) * on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @02:40PM (#12079486) Homepage
    Imagine that... Senator Clinton, the woman who stood by her morally correct husband while at the top of the US government who supported his second in command's wife's desire to mark "inappropriate" music as such, supporting "proper" moral behavior for the inhabitants of this "free" country.

    "Children are playing a game that encourages them to have sex with prostitutes and then murder them," she said in a statement on the issue. "This is a silent epidemic of media desensitisation that teaches kids it's OK to diss people because they are a woman, they're a different colour or they're from a different place."

    Hmmm, what about the US Government desensitizing these same children using the same television by killing and torturing real people during wars in Afghanistan and Iraq or announcing that the head of the US Government was getting his cock sucked by a cigar smoking slut who was married to the same woman who is so against immoral behavior being shown to children?

    The parents are letting their children play GTA and they are letting them watch the news. It's up to the parents of these children to give them direction in life not Senator Clinton or anyone else.

    I'd like someone to sit down the youngsters in our country and try to explain to them how killing or torturing someone in a war that was permitted under false pretenses is morally acceptable but allowing an incapacitated woman to pass away peacefully is not. Or how the President willed a young woman to suck him off and put a cigar in her vagina because he had the power to do so was still allowed to run this "moral" country after he was found guilty of lying?

    Let's have our parents teach us the morals they believe not the mixed messages that the US Government is sending.

    Please stay out of the personal lives of your constituents. We don't need you tell us how to live our lives to be as "moral" as all of you.
    • Hmmm, what about the US Government desensitizing these same children using the same television by killing and torturing real people during wars in Afghanistan and Iraq or announcing that the head of the US Government was getting his ...

      This is just a troll.

      The parents are letting their children play GTA and they are letting them watch the news. It's up to the parents of these children to give them direction in life not Senator Clinton or anyone else.

      Ah, you finally get it. The Government is neithe

      • Just because someone holds different moral viewpoints than you doesn't mean that they're a troll. I'm surprised that this is so difficult of a concept for many here...
      • Rated R (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Flamesplash (469287)
        Isn't GTA rated Mature? This is basically the same as an R rated movie. i don't see what the big deal is. kids shouldn't be allowed to by Mature rated games just as they can't buy R rated movies, after that it's up to their parents and little else.
    • I think this goes beyond simple morality as you've rallied about.

      There absolutely are moral regulations that are necessary. Laws that prevent murder legislate morality. Would you want to ban those? Laws banning lewd acts with siblings and offspring are perfectly valid moral laws that have sound logic behind them. Do you wish to overturn these in your quest to get the "man" off your back?

      Start drawing some lines about what you personally consider morally reprehensible and tell me you think it should be
      • by Qzukk (229616) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:13PM (#12080340) Journal
        perfectly valid moral laws that have sound logic behind them .

        Demonstrate to me that my decade plus of playing wolfenstein 3D, Doom, Quake, and so on will compel me to go out and kill someone.

        Then we'll talk about sound logic.
      • It's about harm. We recongise that you harm someone, their family, the community, etc by taking their life away. It's also something that can't be undone. Thus it's illegal to do, except under very specific circumstances.

        The same is true of most more basic laws. They are about stopping something we recongise as harmful. Not harmful in the moral sense, but in the physical sense. Like theft, if someone deprives you of your property, you are harmed by that since you no longer have that property to use. If it
      • There absolutely are moral regulations that are necessary. Laws that prevent murder legislate morality. Would you want to ban those? Laws banning lewd acts with siblings and offspring are perfectly valid moral laws that have sound logic behind them. Do you wish to overturn these in your quest to get the "man" off your back?

        Start drawing some lines about what you personally consider morally reprehensible and tell me you think it should be a free-for-all society. Now consider when we have to start drawing li
      • "Laws that prevent murder legislate morality."

        No, they legislate the protection of rights. You seem to be confusing justice and morality.

        "Laws banning lewd acts with siblings and offspring are perfectly valid moral laws that have sound logic behind them."

        Then you'd have numbers and links supporting your statement, correct? And what's the point of these laws with today's contraceptives? Better yet, there are many types of "lewd acts" that can't possibly lead to impregnation, should they be banned as
    • Is it that simple? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by downward dog (634625)

      I don't think that the government should try to legislate morality (after all, before you legislate morality, you have the more difficult task of deciding which morality to legislate). But I don't think it is so simple as you put it. The idea is that government has authority in the public sphere, but no authority in the private sphere. This sounds reasonable and may be a great goal, but doesn't work in practice. What happens in public affects people's private lives, and what happens in private affects the p

    • by LWATCDR (28044) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:07PM (#12080205) Homepage Journal
      "I'd like someone to sit down the youngsters in our country and try to explain to them how killing or torturing someone in a war that was permitted under false pretenses is morally acceptable"
      It is not permitted. In fact in case you have not noticed several people are being tried or have already been convicted of these crimes. I have a feeling that more people in the CIA need to be put on trial.

      "but allowing an incapacitated woman to pass away peacefully is not. "

      The court is on your side so far on this one. But isn't good that all the questions about it have been brought up. I for one do not know if starving to death is "peaceful" as you put it. They claim she does not feel pain but then why did the Hospice give her morphine? She left no living will and her family is even at odds over it. This is in no way a simple case.

      "Or how the President willed a young woman to suck him off and put a cigar in her vagina because he had the power to do so was still allowed to run this "moral" country after he was found guilty of lying?"

      You got me on this one. I have no freaking idea. All I hear is that he was a good president and that the economy was better when he was president. Frankly giving him credit for what was an HUGE stock bubble plus the rise of the Internet plus the IT investment in Y2K

      I feel that everything you have pointed out except the Shivo case are more signs of the problem than the root cause. The very fact that so many people like to play GTA is a bad sign. Couldn't the same style of game involve sneaking jews out of Nazi Germany or trying to bring down an oppressive government? The very idea of being good or a hero has fallen out of favor and become comedy. It is sad.
  • Quick! BAN BOOKS! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FortKnox (169099) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @02:41PM (#12079513) Homepage Journal
    I know of some books that suggest similar things! Kids could read it then do it! Ban all forms of seeing while we are at it!!


    If your kid has a problem defining fantasy vs reality, video games are the least of his concern...
    • by Webtommy88 (515386) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @02:46PM (#12079677)
      Ban the bible, lest the citizens learn to stone rapists, murders, and maybe even the politicians to death.
      • The Bible doesn't command that anyone except for Jews over the age of 2,000 do any of those things.
        • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:33PM (#12080771)
          It doesn't even endore it, in fact, it is advertised as a work of fiction, entertainment, not the divine word by which to live your life, as the Bible is.

          So while you contend that the OT doesn't apply to modern people (care to back that up? not saying it can't be, just want to see fi you can) some people may get the wrong idea, and that is what we are worried about with GTA right? That someone might read the sotry and believe they should actually do it.

          I mean clearly there are many that think at least some parts of the OT are to be taken literally. Look at all those that cite it as reason why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry. Or how about the jurors receantly that cited the eye for an eye part when deciding to sentence a rapist to death (http://go.fark.com/cgi/fark/go.pl?IDLink=1421604& location=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FUS%2FwireSt ory%3Fid%3D621347).

          Point is that the Bible is full of authorization to do violence to others. Now perhaps the way you choose to interpret it says that doesn't apply now, that's fine, but it is still there. GTA doesn't command anyone to do anything, it's just a game, yet people seem to object to it based on its content. Why then, isn't there the same objection to the bible (rehtorical question)?
    • by ultramk (470198) <ultramk@pacbe l l . net> on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:02PM (#12080093)
      ...and which books would those be? Exactly which great works of literature talk about what a great idea it is to have sex with a prostitute and then kill her?

      It's a straw-man argument.

      Besides, no one's (no one sane, anyway) is suggesting these games be banned. However, their sale should be restricted to those who society has decided are old enough to perceive the difference between fantasy and reality. If a parent or guardian believes their kid is mature enough to handle it, fine. They can buy it for them. We don't allow kids to buy alcohol, cigarettes or porn until we think they're old enough to decide for themselves. Why should games with adult themes be any different?

      Frankly, too many parents are totally IGNORANT of what their kids are watching, playing and listening to. So parents should be more informed, who disagrees with this?

      MOST kids have a problem discerning the difference between fantasy and reality, at one age or another. I know I did (at least, until about 8 or so). And who among us didn't have a teenage friend who honestly believed professional wrestling was real?

      Give me a break.

      m-
    • by Politburo (640618)
      Does Senator Clinton advocate banning GTA? Did I miss something in the article?

      Put your jump to conclusions mat away, dumbass.
  • by composer777 (175489) * on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @02:41PM (#12079515)
    if the government Senator Clinton represents didn't use violence every day to solve it's problems. This is quite a bit bigger problem than the extremely questionable link that video games have with real world violence. I realize that the government wants to maintain a monopoly on violence, but this seems to be taking it a bit too far.
    • Hmmm, and all this time I was under the impression that Sen. Clinton represented the people of New York. Who knew?
    • God, I can't believe I am defending Hillary Clinton.

      Anyway. Two problems with your post.

      1. Senator Clinton doesn't represent the government. She represents the plurality of people of NY that elected her.

      2. Senator Clinton opposed the war, therefore even if she did "represent the government," I do not think it is hypocritical of her to blast the violence in the game.

      Having said all that, this is an obvious ploy to make people her see her as a centrist instead of a leftist. In other words, politics as usu
  • Campaign Tactic (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ackthpt (218170) * on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @02:41PM (#12079523) Homepage Journal
    Discussion is a good thing. If you read further into the Australian article this appears more a political tack than anything substantive. Even so, I've seen some of the GTA footage and wonder where we're going. Fantasy is OK, to what point? Discussion is important because while people are forced to defend opinions rather than simply bully the opposing view, options are open. I've thought Free Speach, regarding the content of video games to be a pretty tawdry use of constitutional protection. But years ago I could sacrifice the corpse of a @ at an altar in NetHack, granted it was very graphic, but I haven't tried that to anyone on the street lately.

    I remember reading about how wonderful alcohol was, while in Jr. High and Highschools. Never Cry Wolf, by Farley Mowat, painted a lovely picture of something called "wolf juice" which was (IIRC) half whiskey and half beer. This book was required reading for some classes. Should I blame Mr. Mowat for how much I spend on ales, porters and stouts these days? I suggest a few million to conduct a meaningful study. If it's approved, I'll see you all down at the bar, first round is on me.

  • diss?! (Score:5, Funny)

    by JazzyJ (1995) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @02:41PM (#12079528) Homepage Journal
    Hilary Clinton... used the word 'diss' in a sentence? Hilary Clinton?!?...

    Isn't that one of the signs of the Apocalypse???!?!

    Are we sure it wasn't George Clinton?....

    • Re:diss?! (Score:5, Funny)

      by BlueMud (673012) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:12PM (#12080312)
      I'm not so concerned with 'diss' as I am 'colour.' When did she stop using American-English? Last I knew, we banned the letter 'u' about the same time we dumped all that tea in the harbour. CRAP!! There it is again!!! Please save me from the extraneous U's!!!
  • Young Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)

    by onyxruby (118189) <onyxruby AT comcast DOT net> on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @02:41PM (#12079531)
    Is Hilary Clinton trying to swell the ranks of the Young Republicans? Whatever happened to Democrats sticking up for things like civil liberties? When do I get my Deomocrat party back from the corps and self righteous? Yet another disillusioned Democrat that desperatelhy want a middle of the road party to balance things out in this country of mine.
    • by garcia (6573) * on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @02:43PM (#12079594) Homepage
      Whatever happened to Democrats sticking up for things like civil liberties? When do I get my Deomocrat party back from the corps and self righteous?

      At the same time I get my Republican Party back from the New Aged GOP that has started supporting Big Government, Business, and Big Spending.
      • Re:Young Republicans (Score:5, Interesting)

        by sjwaste (780063) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @02:54PM (#12079877)
        At the same time I get my Republican Party back from the New Aged GOP that has started supporting Big Government, Business, and Big Spending.

        I'm wondering the same thing. Where'd all the real republicans go? The ones who don't pay subsidies to big business (and would've let some of the major airlines fold, to be replaced by more competitive ones) and don't spend needlessly on programs that aren't working or entire departments (the IRS could be mostly cut out in favor of a VAT, for example). Oh well, on the other hand, at least we're not as bad as most of the european countries in terms of the tax rate, spending, or unemployment (this isn't a swipe at europeans, many of your nations DO tax and spend more and have higher rates of unemployment).
        • The answer: (Score:5, Insightful)

          by zCyl (14362) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:17PM (#12080424)
          When do I get my Deomocrat party back

          Where'd all the real republicans go?

          It won't change until you find a way to convince the general public to stop voting people they don't really want up through the primary elections just because they think they can win, and find a way to convince the general public to stop believing fabricated rhetoric from the "news" telling them what to think about a candidate's character.

          It's a much bigger problem than just finding a new candidate. It's a systemic problem involving the distribution and control of information, and it has hit both parties.
    • by bonch (38532) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:17PM (#12080416)
      It's pretty nice in my party. We aren't beholden to anybody, and we only follow what we believe.

      It's called being an Independent. :)

      I learned long ago that political parties are nothing more than organized religions. They're only right some of the time, and they all tell the truth, but only their agreeable versions of it.

      Lean Democrat, if that so suits you. But do it because it's what you believe, not what the party believes. Clearly, you are already disillusioned with the Democrats. So don't be one, and wait along for someone to come along you agree with and vote for them based on the issues, not affiliation.

      You'd be amazed how difficult this concept is for so many people. "Which party are you?" "None." *blank stare*
  • by The_Rippa (181699) * on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @02:43PM (#12079572)
    I was murdering prostitutes WAY before GTA came out.
  • by MaestroSartori (146297) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @02:43PM (#12079598) Homepage
    ...about violent games is that parents are buying them for their children, and abdicating the responsibility for moral choice about what their kids see and participate in to complete strangers, ie us game developers.

    If they're making an informed choice to say "Ok Jimmy, you can smoke cops and bang that ho!", they can't complain about it. If they're not making that choice and the kid does it anyway, that's their fault too...
  • In Other News... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CmdrChillupa (166635) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @02:43PM (#12079601)
    Your husband (the most powerful person in the world at the time) got a blowjob from an ugly intern, he blew his wad on her dress and defouled a fine cigar. And then lied about it on national tv.

    What did our children learn from that experience.... Other than women that are with powerful men have to put up with such nonsense.
  • Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by op51n (544058) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @02:44PM (#12079627)
    It doesn't make you kill prostitutes. Just something you are free to do, as in real life. I choose not to in SA, for various reasons.

    Also I think with SA they have been more consistent with who is racist/sexist &c. You're character isn't overly either, yet the more dislikable people are, as in films for instance.

    I bought it, and it had an 18 label on it. Moral of the story - DON'T LET YOUR KIDS PLAY IT IF THEY'RE NOT INTELLIGENT, FREE THINKING INDIVIDUALS. Jesus!
  • Underlying Issue (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Shadow Wrought (586631) <shadow.wroughtNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @02:45PM (#12079640) Homepage Journal
    This may be counter to most of the belief's here, but I think that with games such as GTA there is an underlying issue of responsibility. While I am not blaming the game company for what they have produced, I certainly do think that games such as GTA should not be played by kids. Simply telling parents to not allow their children to play really isn't enough and doesn't get to the core of the issue. What responsibility do game producers have for content that is likely to end up being played by kids? How about the responsibility of parents? And the responibility of your kid's friend's parents? ('cause just because you don't allow it in your house, doesn't mean that Billy doesn't have it.) I think there needs to be more discussion along these points and less finger pointing of who's to blame.
  • by jbarket (530468) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @02:46PM (#12079690)
    Legally enforcing those ESRB ratings seems like the obvious choice to please both sides.

    Hillary Clinton doesn't want an impressionable 15 year old playing GTA. I'm 22, and want to play whatever the hell I please because I'm an adult that's responsible for his own actions.

    I know the ESRB rating system has been around for a while, but nobody enforces it. Nobody is preventing a 15 year old kid from buying a copy of GTA, BMX XXX, or any other game that *probably* isn't all that appropriate for younger kids, even if I played similar games at that age myself and have never physically harmed another human being.

    The problem is that enforcing this screws the retail chains that carry these titles (in addition to screwing the under-18 market, but since they can't vote, I doubt Hilly cares anyway).
  • by Pesticide01 (865676) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @02:51PM (#12079821)
    Is the game terrible? Yes Is the game fun? Yes Should the government be telling creative people what they can and can not develop? No This goes hand in hand with freedom of speech. The core issue lies in morality (lack thereof) and parents who just don't care. Let capitolism determine what will be produced.
  • by isotope23 (210590) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @02:52PM (#12079852) Homepage Journal
    Look here [usdoj.gov]

    The best quotes :
    "Serious violent crime levels declined since 1993. "
    "Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993."

    The most amusing thing is Doom was released at the peak in 1993. Perhaps people are taking their frustations out in violent video games instead of real life?

  • Pot, Kettle, etc. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Guppy06 (410832) * on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @02:54PM (#12079885)
    "Senator Hillary Clinton has joined right wing advocates in decrying the gaming industry as a paragon of loose morals and corrupting influences."

    Oh, come now! The United States Senate itself is "a paragon of loose morals and corrupting influences!" If Congress spent half of the energy it spends on trying to reform us on reforming itself, we might actually have a respectable national government for once.

    I play video games to get away from stuff like this, and now some USS wants to take that away from me as well?
  • by javaxman (705658) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:05PM (#12080165) Journal
    Do you blame her, or do you blame the people who voted for GW in the last election citing 'morals' as the reason? I'm still puzzled by that, actually, but... clearly, she's been taking some more traditionally right-wing stances lately, and everyone seems to think, probably correctly, that she's gearing up for a national election ( either as V.P. or president, it's anyone's guess ).

    Politically, this stance on video games is pretty safe, and you'll note that all she's doing here is saying we should study how bad the problem really is.

    She could be doing this knowing full and well that any honest study may come back with the result of "these are no worse than movies and books", with the final result being ( in the worst case ) congress passing laws requiring age restrictions on games. Honestly, I think that's going to far, and they're actually likely to get struck down in court ( IF we can keep GW from packing in another serious social conservative, which isn't looking good ), but in the long run, it might be good for the industry and result in even *more* explicit games. When you have to get a game from behind the counter or from a local non-blockbuster video store or an online source because *mart is too weak to carry it, the gloves are off, you can make that game as nasty as you want.

    In the long run, a video game is no different than a movie in a lot of ways, so if there's some lame decency rating system that prevents a minor from buying a really gory, racist, sexist movie, then that same system should be placed on games, in all seriousness and fairness. But it should actually ( I think ) be the same system- it's not right to use stricter standards for games than other video content.

    Untimately, though, we have a generally bad situation in America, where people are abdicating their parental responsibilities to the state, and it's not OK. If your kid is playing a graphic game, and you don't want them to, you should be able to prevent them without affecting the rest of society. It's no different than letting them buy a really gory or violent DVD. Don't let them do it, and take it and punish them if they get one. You're the parent, act like it. If you want the state to police your morals, move to Iran, they'll help you out.

  • by Jerf (17166) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:17PM (#12080420) Journal
    Why is it that the instant you sit a politician down with a copy of Grand Theft Auto, the first thing they do is seek out a prostitute, have sex with them, and then murder them for money?

    I mean, I had my copy for months before I knew you could do that. (I like to avoid FAQ-style sites until I either really need them or I've finished the game.) Not these politicians, though; wham, within five minutes apparently they've nailed a whore and then run her down.

    Missions? Cruising the town and admiring the graphics? Committing a crime and noticing that you actually get caught (unlike many games where it's just oblivious)? OK, I won't try to claim that GTA teaches you anything serious about consequences (though I'd point out the lack of Pay & Sprays in the Real World (TM)), but still, there's more to the game then blowing away women of the night after they service you.

    I mean, come on, this is Grand Theft Auto, and that's all you can find to complain about? Yeesh, try a couple of missions or something. What about flying around the city without filing a flight plan and illegally littering on a grand scale by dumping out explicit pornographic fliers which flutter around for the remainder of the game? Just look at all those crimes!
  • problem? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lord_Dweomer (648696) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:29PM (#12080679) Homepage
    Children under 18 are not allowed to purchase this game.

    People over 18 are considered adults for all practical purposes, and should not be told what games they can and cannot play. As a 21 year old, I LOVE the violence in these games as I realize that they are pure fantasy. If I am willing to spend money to purchase this game, Rockstar should be permitted to make it if there's a market.

    If children area buying the game when they are underage, then THAT is the problem that needs to be addressed, not whether people should make games like this. Because there is a whole market who is able to handle this "realism" and as part of that market, I don't want to have something I find fun taken away because some moralistic bitch wants to impose her morals on my life.

  • by HockeyPuck (141947) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:54PM (#12081155)
    [Hillary Clinton] wants a $90 million investigation to be launched

    Who are they paying with this money? Do you really need $90million worth of research on this topic? Classrooms are overcrowded, people are going hungry, teachers are underpaid... the deficit is going up...

    Isn't there something more important to go after than this? This is EXACTLY what Bush did during the election by making gay marriage the issue of the election instead of the economy...

    All she's doing is grandstanding to get elected by the rightwing while calling herself a leftwing democrat.

  • So... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geekee (591277) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @06:05PM (#12082968)
    Hillary believes it's ok for a teenage girl to have the right to have an abortion without parental consent, but she can't play a video game with simulated sex and violence.

Lo! Men have become the tool of their tools. -- Henry David Thoreau

Working...