The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
This thread has been linked to the game 'Grand Theft Auto 3'.
You've probably all seen the recent article on the two teenagers who fired shotguns into a main road. If so, you'll also have heard about the death of one man, resulting from severe injuries to his temple when he was struck by one of the projectiles. Following this man's unfortunate death, the family are preparing a lawsuit. This is completely understandable, as after such a terrible loss in such unfair circumstances, whilst no amount of compensation would ever make up for what happened, it may help in the future.
The problem though is that rather than looking carefully at the crime and saying "Hey, those kids had shotguns, where did they get those?", the lawsuit is aimed at what influenced those kids to pick up the shotguns in the first place. Unfortunately for Rockstar Games, the kids seemed to be doing their best to copy the Grand Theft Auto games. It didn't make it clear in the article that this is what the kids had actually said themselves, but somebody at least had noticed the resemblance, and decided that the link existed.
Taking the case to gun licensing agencies or perhaps to the government itself would probably go nowhere. The rules are set out, there are permits, gun restrictions, age limits, state policies and many other regulations put in place to govern the use of guns in America, so when something like this occurs, its not their fault, even when it obviously is. No guns > No shooting > Less deaths. Sadly its not that simple or black and white, but surely guns are where the real blame lies.
Putting this aside, and pretending that the possession of guns had no part to play, (presumably the guns belonged to parents or older friends anyway, too stupid to lock the things away properly), the next step would probably be to see what drove the teenagers to do what they did. Given the fact that the link to Grand Theft Auto has already been made, it would seem likely that this was the influence, but isn't all that just a load of rubbish? Did those kids get influenced by Grand Theft Auto, or where they just like that anyway, and as a result, enjoyed playing games based on shooting and killing?
Many people who play GTA would probably admit to the fact that it can be enjoyable running over the occasional pedestrian, and sometimes satisfying to take part in a rampage, spraying gunfire across groups of gang members. The point though is that we do it because we know it isn't real. Its fun because nobody gets hurt. If you think about its real life counter-part, its disgusting, but in a game, its just harmless fun. The problem exists when somebody plays the game and enjoys it because they would *enjoy* the real life alternative. Its already in the user's head, the difference between right and wrong. GTA doesn't change the position of their conscience, if anything it gives them a way to release their feelings in a way that causes no harm.
The influence though is up to the courts to decide I guess, but surely they'll have to look at the kids ages and say, oops, neither of those two are 18, perhaps its the parents' fault. Surely they should never have been playing the game in the first place. Rockstar covered their backs, they submitted the game for age rating testing, and an 18 certificate was added, so its down to shop salespersons and parents to do the rest of the work.
Okay, so perhaps there is some doubt as to Rockstar's part in the crime, so why take the lawsuit to them for compensation? Basically, they are the easiest target to claim lots of money from. As I said before, it'd be tough to get even a penny from gun licensing agencies, and all you'll do to the family responsible is get the kids put away, and possibly the parents for negligence, so that just leaves Rockstar - a successful company with a massively popular product that at the same time manages to be its Achilles heel.
I don't blame the victim's family for creating a lawsuit, its totally understandable. I am fortunate enough to have never had that happen to myself or a family member, and hope that it never does, but I can't help but feel that they are going after the wrong target. After somebody dies in such an upsetting way, surely it would be good if their death wasn't for nothing, that they somehow had a massive effect on gun crime in America, rather than simply making life less fun for those who are still around to enjoy it. Sadly I feel games will continue to take the blame, and as they become more realistic, this will no doubt become more frequent.
Despite what I've said though, I do wish the victim's family luck in their case, and hope that they can go on in their lives and begin to enjoy themselves again soon.
The problem though is that rather than looking carefully at the crime and saying "Hey, those kids had shotguns, where did they get those?", the lawsuit is aimed at what influenced those kids to pick up the shotguns in the first place. Unfortunately for Rockstar Games, the kids seemed to be doing their best to copy the Grand Theft Auto games. It didn't make it clear in the article that this is what the kids had actually said themselves, but somebody at least had noticed the resemblance, and decided that the link existed.
Taking the case to gun licensing agencies or perhaps to the government itself would probably go nowhere. The rules are set out, there are permits, gun restrictions, age limits, state policies and many other regulations put in place to govern the use of guns in America, so when something like this occurs, its not their fault, even when it obviously is. No guns > No shooting > Less deaths. Sadly its not that simple or black and white, but surely guns are where the real blame lies.
Putting this aside, and pretending that the possession of guns had no part to play, (presumably the guns belonged to parents or older friends anyway, too stupid to lock the things away properly), the next step would probably be to see what drove the teenagers to do what they did. Given the fact that the link to Grand Theft Auto has already been made, it would seem likely that this was the influence, but isn't all that just a load of rubbish? Did those kids get influenced by Grand Theft Auto, or where they just like that anyway, and as a result, enjoyed playing games based on shooting and killing?
Many people who play GTA would probably admit to the fact that it can be enjoyable running over the occasional pedestrian, and sometimes satisfying to take part in a rampage, spraying gunfire across groups of gang members. The point though is that we do it because we know it isn't real. Its fun because nobody gets hurt. If you think about its real life counter-part, its disgusting, but in a game, its just harmless fun. The problem exists when somebody plays the game and enjoys it because they would *enjoy* the real life alternative. Its already in the user's head, the difference between right and wrong. GTA doesn't change the position of their conscience, if anything it gives them a way to release their feelings in a way that causes no harm.
The influence though is up to the courts to decide I guess, but surely they'll have to look at the kids ages and say, oops, neither of those two are 18, perhaps its the parents' fault. Surely they should never have been playing the game in the first place. Rockstar covered their backs, they submitted the game for age rating testing, and an 18 certificate was added, so its down to shop salespersons and parents to do the rest of the work.
Okay, so perhaps there is some doubt as to Rockstar's part in the crime, so why take the lawsuit to them for compensation? Basically, they are the easiest target to claim lots of money from. As I said before, it'd be tough to get even a penny from gun licensing agencies, and all you'll do to the family responsible is get the kids put away, and possibly the parents for negligence, so that just leaves Rockstar - a successful company with a massively popular product that at the same time manages to be its Achilles heel.
I don't blame the victim's family for creating a lawsuit, its totally understandable. I am fortunate enough to have never had that happen to myself or a family member, and hope that it never does, but I can't help but feel that they are going after the wrong target. After somebody dies in such an upsetting way, surely it would be good if their death wasn't for nothing, that they somehow had a massive effect on gun crime in America, rather than simply making life less fun for those who are still around to enjoy it. Sadly I feel games will continue to take the blame, and as they become more realistic, this will no doubt become more frequent.
Despite what I've said though, I do wish the victim's family luck in their case, and hope that they can go on in their lives and begin to enjoy themselves again soon.
Page:
You've probably all seen the recent article on the two teenagers who fired shotguns into a main road. If so, you'll also have heard about the death of one man, resulting from severe injuries to his temple when he was struck by one of the projectiles. Following this man's unfortunate death, the family are preparing a lawsuit. This is completely understandable, as after such a terrible loss in such unfair circumstances, whilst no amount of compensation would ever make up for what happened, it may help in the future.
The problem though is that rather than looking carefully at the crime and saying "Hey, those kids had shotguns, where did they get those?", the lawsuit is aimed at what influenced those kids to pick up the shotguns in the first place. Unfortunately for Rockstar Games, the kids seemed to be doing their best to copy the Grand Theft Auto games. It didn't make it clear in the article that this is what the kids had actually said themselves, but somebody at least had noticed the resemblance, and decided that the link existed.
Taking the case to gun licensing agencies or perhaps to the government itself would probably go nowhere. The rules are set out, there are permits, gun restrictions, age limits, state policies and many other regulations put in place to govern the use of guns in America, so when something like this occurs, its not their fault, even when it obviously is. No guns > No shooting > Less deaths. Sadly its not that simple or black and white, but surely guns are where the real blame lies.
Putting this aside, and pretending that the possession of guns had no part to play, (presumably the guns belonged to parents or older friends anyway, too stupid to lock the things away properly), the next step would probably be to see what drove the teenagers to do what they did. Given the fact that the link to Grand Theft Auto has already been made, it would seem likely that this was the influence, but isn't all that just a load of rubbish? Did those kids get influenced by Grand Theft Auto, or where they just like that anyway, and as a result, enjoyed playing games based on shooting and killing?
Many people who play GTA would probably admit to the fact that it can be enjoyable running over the occasional pedestrian, and sometimes satisfying to take part in a rampage, spraying gunfire across groups of gang members. The point though is that we do it because we know it isn't real. Its fun because nobody gets hurt. If you think about its real life counter-part, its disgusting, but in a game, its just harmless fun. The problem exists when somebody plays the game and enjoys it because they would *enjoy* the real life alternative. Its already in the user's head, the difference between right and wrong. GTA doesn't change the position of their conscience, if anything it gives them a way to release their feelings in a way that causes no harm.
The influence though is up to the courts to decide I guess, but surely they'll have to look at the kids ages and say, oops, neither of those two are 18, perhaps its the parents' fault. Surely they should never have been playing the game in the first place. Rockstar covered their backs, they submitted the game for age rating testing, and an 18 certificate was added, so its down to shop salespersons and parents to do the rest of the work.
Okay, so perhaps there is some doubt as to Rockstar's part in the crime, so why take the lawsuit to them for compensation? Basically, they are the easiest target to claim lots of money from. As I said before, it'd be tough to get even a penny from gun licensing agencies, and all you'll do to the family responsible is get the kids put away, and possibly the parents for negligence, so that just leaves Rockstar - a successful company with a massively popular product that at the same time manages to be its Achilles heel.
I don't blame the victim's family for creating a lawsuit, its totally understandable. I am fortunate enough to have never had that happen to myself or a family member, and hope that it never does, but I can't help but feel that they are going after the wrong target. After somebody dies in such an upsetting way, surely it would be good if their death wasn't for nothing, that they somehow had a massive effect on gun crime in America, rather than simply making life less fun for those who are still around to enjoy it. Sadly I feel games will continue to take the blame, and as they become more realistic, this will no doubt become more frequent.
Despite what I've said though, I do wish the victim's family luck in their case, and hope that they can go on in their lives and begin to enjoy themselves again soon.
The problem though is that rather than looking carefully at the crime and saying "Hey, those kids had shotguns, where did they get those?", the lawsuit is aimed at what influenced those kids to pick up the shotguns in the first place. Unfortunately for Rockstar Games, the kids seemed to be doing their best to copy the Grand Theft Auto games. It didn't make it clear in the article that this is what the kids had actually said themselves, but somebody at least had noticed the resemblance, and decided that the link existed.
Taking the case to gun licensing agencies or perhaps to the government itself would probably go nowhere. The rules are set out, there are permits, gun restrictions, age limits, state policies and many other regulations put in place to govern the use of guns in America, so when something like this occurs, its not their fault, even when it obviously is. No guns > No shooting > Less deaths. Sadly its not that simple or black and white, but surely guns are where the real blame lies.
Putting this aside, and pretending that the possession of guns had no part to play, (presumably the guns belonged to parents or older friends anyway, too stupid to lock the things away properly), the next step would probably be to see what drove the teenagers to do what they did. Given the fact that the link to Grand Theft Auto has already been made, it would seem likely that this was the influence, but isn't all that just a load of rubbish? Did those kids get influenced by Grand Theft Auto, or where they just like that anyway, and as a result, enjoyed playing games based on shooting and killing?
Many people who play GTA would probably admit to the fact that it can be enjoyable running over the occasional pedestrian, and sometimes satisfying to take part in a rampage, spraying gunfire across groups of gang members. The point though is that we do it because we know it isn't real. Its fun because nobody gets hurt. If you think about its real life counter-part, its disgusting, but in a game, its just harmless fun. The problem exists when somebody plays the game and enjoys it because they would *enjoy* the real life alternative. Its already in the user's head, the difference between right and wrong. GTA doesn't change the position of their conscience, if anything it gives them a way to release their feelings in a way that causes no harm.
The influence though is up to the courts to decide I guess, but surely they'll have to look at the kids ages and say, oops, neither of those two are 18, perhaps its the parents' fault. Surely they should never have been playing the game in the first place. Rockstar covered their backs, they submitted the game for age rating testing, and an 18 certificate was added, so its down to shop salespersons and parents to do the rest of the work.
Okay, so perhaps there is some doubt as to Rockstar's part in the crime, so why take the lawsuit to them for compensation? Basically, they are the easiest target to claim lots of money from. As I said before, it'd be tough to get even a penny from gun licensing agencies, and all you'll do to the family responsible is get the kids put away, and possibly the parents for negligence, so that just leaves Rockstar - a successful company with a massively popular product that at the same time manages to be its Achilles heel.
I don't blame the victim's family for creating a lawsuit, its totally understandable. I am fortunate enough to have never had that happen to myself or a family member, and hope that it never does, but I can't help but feel that they are going after the wrong target. After somebody dies in such an upsetting way, surely it would be good if their death wasn't for nothing, that they somehow had a massive effect on gun crime in America, rather than simply making life less fun for those who are still around to enjoy it. Sadly I feel games will continue to take the blame, and as they become more realistic, this will no doubt become more frequent.
Despite what I've said though, I do wish the victim's family luck in their case, and hope that they can go on in their lives and begin to enjoy themselves again soon.
The kids are reported to have blamed the Grand Theft Auto series for their overly idiotic actions, which is why this particular case is being set up against Rockstar.
But the point you're raising is a worthy one, and one that should've been taken into consideration by the authorities, and also by the family attempting the lawsuit. Attacking Rockstar is fair enough, as let's be honest; their game can be a little over the top sometimes, and maybe if you're dumb enough it could lead you to doing something stupid like this. But also, where and how did these kids get a hold of such lethal weaponry?
If they've found them in their own house, then the parents should held responsible, and if they've bought them from somewhere else, then some idiot that doesn't seem to think it's wrong to sell stuff like this to kids should be searched for, discovered, and prosecuted for his actions.
Maybe Rockstar are to blame for this by actually infuencing these obvious redneck mongo-children... or maybe the kids are just using them as scapegoats to take the blame from their stupidity. Either way, surely having even the tiniest bit of sense will tell you it's wrong to point a shotgun at passing vehicles.
I'm saying maybe Rockstar are to blame, but I really feel that the family who lost someone due to this horrible situation are going after the wrong people.
Good post with good points.
But the point you're raising is a worthy one, and one that should've been taken into consideration by the authorities, and also by the family attempting the lawsuit. Attacking Rockstar is fair enough, as let's be honest; their game can be a little over the top sometimes, and maybe if you're dumb enough it could lead you to doing something stupid like this. But also, where and how did these kids get a hold of such lethal weaponry?
If they've found them in their own house, then the parents should held responsible, and if they've bought them from somewhere else, then some idiot that doesn't seem to think it's wrong to sell stuff like this to kids should be searched for, discovered, and prosecuted for his actions.
Maybe Rockstar are to blame for this by actually infuencing these obvious redneck mongo-children... or maybe the kids are just using them as scapegoats to take the blame from their stupidity. Either way, surely having even the tiniest bit of sense will tell you it's wrong to point a shotgun at passing vehicles.
I'm saying maybe Rockstar are to blame, but I really feel that the family who lost someone due to this horrible situation are going after the wrong people.
Good post with good points.
Thanks for the excellent reply, its nice to get into a more detailed discussion. I'm glad you cleared up the point about the kids blaming Rockstar. The article I read didn't make it clear, only stating that Rockstar had been implicated, not that the kids themselves had blamed them.
I agree with you on the Rockstar point, that the GTA games can be over the top sometimes, but its not hard to find something far beyond this. For example, Scream is a fairly tame horror movie, almost a comedy in some respects, and yet its based around killing more violent and graphic than anything in GTA. Where the game sees somebody get killed accompanied by a comedy spout of blood, the Scream movies build tension, fear, far more aggression, and have some lethal ways of finishing people off, and far more blood. As I said though, Scream is pretty tame, just take a look around for a true horror movie, and you're bound to find something more violent than GTA.
I guess the point though is that those movies are simply watched by the user, and not played by them. Teachers in schools argue that revision should include writing down key points and facts, not just reading them, as this is a better way of learning. Perhaps in this same way, playing a game makes you learn more than simply watching a film, and thus you are more likely to act out something played in a game.
On the gun point, I admit to not knowing enough about American politics, and also admit to being a little naive when it comes to this kind of thing. It would be so much better if guns were totally illegal except under strictly controlled military supervision (though it would be nice if even army weapons were taken away, but that's not going to happen for a long, long time). The trouble is, half the population will turn round and tell us their stories about how they have to come home from work at 11pm and that they fear for their lives because of people with knives and other weapons trying to mug them, so they need guns for protection.
I think that what I'm seeing, just by considering this topic, is that the problem faced here isn't about one thing, and even if it was, its not Rockstar. The gun crime situation is so much more complex than that, and I guess if it wasn't, gun crime would either be non-existant or very common. If it was caused by one simple thing, lots of people would be exposed to it, and set about shooting. Shortly afterwards, that one thing would be banned, and gun crime would stop. As it is, there is a long sequence of events that have to come together, and this lowers the probability of a killer being made. Something in the genes at birth, and later a tough upbringing perhaps with a father who beats his wife, and then early exposure to 18-rated products and real life crime, lots of causes coming together to result in one messed up person in a million going out and shooting somebody else. Are they even to blame if its simply the result of things done to them throughout their lives? I think that's a totally different subject though, so I'll leave that.
I agree with you on the Rockstar point, that the GTA games can be over the top sometimes, but its not hard to find something far beyond this. For example, Scream is a fairly tame horror movie, almost a comedy in some respects, and yet its based around killing more violent and graphic than anything in GTA. Where the game sees somebody get killed accompanied by a comedy spout of blood, the Scream movies build tension, fear, far more aggression, and have some lethal ways of finishing people off, and far more blood. As I said though, Scream is pretty tame, just take a look around for a true horror movie, and you're bound to find something more violent than GTA.
I guess the point though is that those movies are simply watched by the user, and not played by them. Teachers in schools argue that revision should include writing down key points and facts, not just reading them, as this is a better way of learning. Perhaps in this same way, playing a game makes you learn more than simply watching a film, and thus you are more likely to act out something played in a game.
On the gun point, I admit to not knowing enough about American politics, and also admit to being a little naive when it comes to this kind of thing. It would be so much better if guns were totally illegal except under strictly controlled military supervision (though it would be nice if even army weapons were taken away, but that's not going to happen for a long, long time). The trouble is, half the population will turn round and tell us their stories about how they have to come home from work at 11pm and that they fear for their lives because of people with knives and other weapons trying to mug them, so they need guns for protection.
I think that what I'm seeing, just by considering this topic, is that the problem faced here isn't about one thing, and even if it was, its not Rockstar. The gun crime situation is so much more complex than that, and I guess if it wasn't, gun crime would either be non-existant or very common. If it was caused by one simple thing, lots of people would be exposed to it, and set about shooting. Shortly afterwards, that one thing would be banned, and gun crime would stop. As it is, there is a long sequence of events that have to come together, and this lowers the probability of a killer being made. Something in the genes at birth, and later a tough upbringing perhaps with a father who beats his wife, and then early exposure to 18-rated products and real life crime, lots of causes coming together to result in one messed up person in a million going out and shooting somebody else. Are they even to blame if its simply the result of things done to them throughout their lives? I think that's a totally different subject though, so I'll leave that.
:O
SSXPro returns.
Anyway, I agree, these kids are looking for an easy way out, and what is bound to get the fingered pointed at?
Gaming.
Stupid people...
Do you have MSN SSXPro?
SSXPro returns.
Anyway, I agree, these kids are looking for an easy way out, and what is bound to get the fingered pointed at?
Gaming.
Stupid people...
Do you have MSN SSXPro?
The fact is that if games did actually influence peoples actions then for a game like GTA that sells many millions then surely there should be a hell of a lot more people influenced like this.
The american gun thing is a tricky thing. It is there second bill of rights to bare arms. So after the freedom of speech they have the right to own a gun and it goes back a long long way so there is hardly much chance of that changing.
Seems like a well thought up excuse. Don't blame ourselves for being stupid or mentally ill enough to do it. Blame some computer company for making a game where someone did something similar.
Its like fat kids taking legal action against fast food places. Only in america.
The american gun thing is a tricky thing. It is there second bill of rights to bare arms. So after the freedom of speech they have the right to own a gun and it goes back a long long way so there is hardly much chance of that changing.
Seems like a well thought up excuse. Don't blame ourselves for being stupid or mentally ill enough to do it. Blame some computer company for making a game where someone did something similar.
Its like fat kids taking legal action against fast food places. Only in america.
The world in general is so clueless when it comes to games. Most people still think of games as Pac-Man or Space Invaders - harmless, pointless, bits of fun.
For some reason the same attitude is around today when games should be accepted as a valid form of media along with films and books. If anthing, games are on a level above these.
And there's these mental kids doing what they'd do anyway - only now they have something to blame it on. And that something isn't understood by the 'adult' community - so games become the perfect scapegoat.
If the world wised up to how much games have changed in a such a short time maybe they wouldn't come under so much critisism.
If you ask a mum who's just bought GTA for her 7 year old son if she'd let him go watch an 18 rated movie, on his own (as most game are played by kids) she'd give you a definate no.
Then you ask her about the game she just bought and she'll go "yeah, but it's just a game" - outdated attitides.
Something that caught, and shocked, me today was:
On 'Today with Des & Mel' (I got home early from college : |) they had Kim Wilde on - the "Kids In America" woman, you know. And she was saying that little kids were coming upto here and asking her to sing Kids in America because (in her words) "It's prevailant in some video game or other".
Now I'm sure only Vice City's got that soundtrack on it.
Really got me.
Kids about 4 or 5 playing GTA. It's just not right.
It's an adult's game, for adult's to enjoy.
For some reason the same attitude is around today when games should be accepted as a valid form of media along with films and books. If anthing, games are on a level above these.
And there's these mental kids doing what they'd do anyway - only now they have something to blame it on. And that something isn't understood by the 'adult' community - so games become the perfect scapegoat.
If the world wised up to how much games have changed in a such a short time maybe they wouldn't come under so much critisism.
If you ask a mum who's just bought GTA for her 7 year old son if she'd let him go watch an 18 rated movie, on his own (as most game are played by kids) she'd give you a definate no.
Then you ask her about the game she just bought and she'll go "yeah, but it's just a game" - outdated attitides.
Something that caught, and shocked, me today was:
On 'Today with Des & Mel' (I got home early from college : |) they had Kim Wilde on - the "Kids In America" woman, you know. And she was saying that little kids were coming upto here and asking her to sing Kids in America because (in her words) "It's prevailant in some video game or other".
Now I'm sure only Vice City's got that soundtrack on it.
Really got me.
Kids about 4 or 5 playing GTA. It's just not right.
It's an adult's game, for adult's to enjoy.
Hiya Badgerman, I do indeed have MSN. My e-mail address is my user name on this site at hotmail. I type it that way because hopefully the occasional spamming scanners won't notice it and start talking to me. :D
Back to the discussion, it seems to be like the First World War. If you did that in GCSE history, then (and the details are hazy after so long) you may remember that we were told about all the different things leading to war. Invasions of certain countries, the arms race, etc... We were told though, over and over, that it wasn't one particular thing, but a whole series of events leading to war. There were suggestions that perhaps one thing triggered the war, (the assassination of an Austrian leader or something wasn't it?), but the trigger is nothing without something to, erm, trigger. You know what I mean :D
GTA may have been a trigger perhaps, they saw it, they copied it, but its via a long series of miniscule coincidences that they arrived at a point stupid enough to do such a thing. I guess Chaos theory could play its part. Minute changes in the initial conditions, leading that person to do drastically different things later in life. Even then the probability of one particular tiny path being followed is tiny, but sadly not 0, which is why this lawsuit exists.
Back to the discussion, it seems to be like the First World War. If you did that in GCSE history, then (and the details are hazy after so long) you may remember that we were told about all the different things leading to war. Invasions of certain countries, the arms race, etc... We were told though, over and over, that it wasn't one particular thing, but a whole series of events leading to war. There were suggestions that perhaps one thing triggered the war, (the assassination of an Austrian leader or something wasn't it?), but the trigger is nothing without something to, erm, trigger. You know what I mean :D
GTA may have been a trigger perhaps, they saw it, they copied it, but its via a long series of miniscule coincidences that they arrived at a point stupid enough to do such a thing. I guess Chaos theory could play its part. Minute changes in the initial conditions, leading that person to do drastically different things later in life. Even then the probability of one particular tiny path being followed is tiny, but sadly not 0, which is why this lawsuit exists.
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> Now I'm sure only Vice City's got that soundtrack on it.
I'd have to agree with you there. I've only played a tiny fraction of the games out there, but I think we'd know if another game had that song on it. Only a GTA game could really make it work if you ask me. Can you imagine Tekken or WipEout with that on in the background? Eek!
> Kids about 4 or 5 playing GTA. It's just not right.
I think I agree here, but in some ways, its not right for 12 year olds, but more so for a 4 year old. That makes no sense I know, but what I mean is that perhaps at that age they are too innocent to truly understand what's going on... but then, on the other hand, they might think the same way about picking up a real gun - what does this do? Okay, you've convinced me, its not right for 4/5 year olds either. Its an 18 for a reason.
> It's an adult's game, for adult's to enjoy.
True, and yet look round the forum - how many people here are under 18 and own a copy of the game? (To those it may concern - you don't have to answer if you're worried, just sit there nodding to yourself for a moment, there are a fair few of you). My guess would be that the average age of people on the GTA forum was about 16. Such a tough subject this!
> Now I'm sure only Vice City's got that soundtrack on it.
I'd have to agree with you there. I've only played a tiny fraction of the games out there, but I think we'd know if another game had that song on it. Only a GTA game could really make it work if you ask me. Can you imagine Tekken or WipEout with that on in the background? Eek!
> Kids about 4 or 5 playing GTA. It's just not right.
I think I agree here, but in some ways, its not right for 12 year olds, but more so for a 4 year old. That makes no sense I know, but what I mean is that perhaps at that age they are too innocent to truly understand what's going on... but then, on the other hand, they might think the same way about picking up a real gun - what does this do? Okay, you've convinced me, its not right for 4/5 year olds either. Its an 18 for a reason.
> It's an adult's game, for adult's to enjoy.
True, and yet look round the forum - how many people here are under 18 and own a copy of the game? (To those it may concern - you don't have to answer if you're worried, just sit there nodding to yourself for a moment, there are a fair few of you). My guess would be that the average age of people on the GTA forum was about 16. Such a tough subject this!
Look at me!
*Jumps up and down*
I'm the biggest hypocrite there is!
Yes, only 16 myself.
Which means I must have been about 14 when GTA3 came out. Maybe 15. Time is funny.
So that's basically nullifed everything else I said, eh?
Anywho - I'd think myself mature enough to not be influenced / shocked / turned on by anything in GTA. And I can see it's one of the best games ever because of it's scale and free-roaming and infinite length, not just the blood and hookers.
I'd say about 14 is minimum GTA age. Maybe 13 - when kids have started thinking for themselves and not just doing what mummy told them to.
It's around there, if not sooner, most kids start watching 18-rated films anyway. Same umbrella.
And I finished Vice City 100%.
It doesn't have much to do with anything.
But I like saying it.
At every oppertunity.
*Jumps up and down*
I'm the biggest hypocrite there is!
Yes, only 16 myself.
Which means I must have been about 14 when GTA3 came out. Maybe 15. Time is funny.
So that's basically nullifed everything else I said, eh?
Anywho - I'd think myself mature enough to not be influenced / shocked / turned on by anything in GTA. And I can see it's one of the best games ever because of it's scale and free-roaming and infinite length, not just the blood and hookers.
I'd say about 14 is minimum GTA age. Maybe 13 - when kids have started thinking for themselves and not just doing what mummy told them to.
It's around there, if not sooner, most kids start watching 18-rated films anyway. Same umbrella.
And I finished Vice City 100%.
It doesn't have much to do with anything.
But I like saying it.
At every oppertunity.
I suspected that might be the case, though in the quality of your posts, you never show it. As you say though, in your case it didn't matter. You may not have been 18, but you were old enough to realise what's right and wrong, you were mentally prepared for everything you saw, and it had no negative effects on you. The trouble is, that doesn't apply to everyone.
Before I go off on another ramble, I'll change the topic slightly to Jak II. It seems to me that GTA has had a large influence on the game, and as a result, Jak II is part platformer, part GTA adventure. The new name for the genre says it all really. Could this be a step in the right direction though? From the reviews I've read, it doesn't quite have the same incredible level of detail that Vice City does, but it gets pretty close. On top of that, Naughty Dog are masters at tuning the controls (the main area I felt Jak and Daxter was superior to Ratchet and Clank), which means it will have advantages over Vice City in that area.
If they could add that little bit extra that gives GTA its magic, then Jak II, or a game that follows in its footsteps could be the perfect solution. A game that keeps on giving to all ages, but also one that doesn't end up getting put in the spotlight for the wrong reasons. Good luck to Jak, Daxter and Naughty Dog!
Before I go off on another ramble, I'll change the topic slightly to Jak II. It seems to me that GTA has had a large influence on the game, and as a result, Jak II is part platformer, part GTA adventure. The new name for the genre says it all really. Could this be a step in the right direction though? From the reviews I've read, it doesn't quite have the same incredible level of detail that Vice City does, but it gets pretty close. On top of that, Naughty Dog are masters at tuning the controls (the main area I felt Jak and Daxter was superior to Ratchet and Clank), which means it will have advantages over Vice City in that area.
If they could add that little bit extra that gives GTA its magic, then Jak II, or a game that follows in its footsteps could be the perfect solution. A game that keeps on giving to all ages, but also one that doesn't end up getting put in the spotlight for the wrong reasons. Good luck to Jak, Daxter and Naughty Dog!
Page: