The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
This discussion makes a number of interesting points, however the thing that concerns me is that this may become a more common occurrence as immersion in gaming becomes more total. I’m not just talking about improving graphics, but also surround sound and more involved control interfaces.
The controversy with GTA started back with the original incarnation, with a top down perspective and compared to today’s incarnations pretty cartoon-like violence. The current generation of GTA games, takes the impact of these games to a whole new level. As such, the current threat of litigation against Rockstar is unwelcome, although not exactly unexpected.
The basis for the threat against Rockstar is down to a number of reasons:
People are always looking for a scapegoat and as SSXPro said, no one is willing to consider challenging where the 2 teenagers got the gun(s) from, or whether the parents are responsible for not teaching their ‘little darlings’ right from wrong.
There is a general misconception that gaming is a whole is a children’s pass time and as such the concept of a game aimed squarely at the 18+ market is something apparently incomprehensible. That is exactly why parents happily purchase GTA and the like for their children even though it has the 18 certificate and the shop attendant has said that it is not suitable for children. The parent simply sees a game – surely that can’t contain excessive violence – can it?
In defence of these parents, until about 8 years ago, gaming was a kids pass time. It wasn’t until the 2nd half of the 1990’s that gaming became an acceptable way for anyone over 18 to spend their evenings. Games developers and publishers have become aware of this and are making games aimed at this more ‘mature’ audience.
The main comparitor with the videogames is that of the film industry. There are many more films available with more graphic violence and general depravity than a game like GTA could ever contain. While there have been calls to ban these films, the main difference is that if a teenager claims his actions were due to what he saw in film X, the parents are blamed for allowing him/her to watch it in the first place. Have any of the major film makers every been sued for the films they produce? Certainly not and so it follows that because Rockstar has protected itself by getting these games ‘rated’ in the same way a film is, they are no more liable for the actions of these teenagers than , say, Universal would be if these kids attributed their actions to may hours spend watching violent films made by this company.
The vast majority of people can differentiate between reality and a game, in the same way that we know that what we see in films is not real. It is only individuals who are open to these kind of suggestions that would act upon what they experience in these games. The main difference between films and games is that watching a film is a passive pass time, where a game is active. In Vice City YOU are Tommy Vercetti, YOU are running those pedestrians over and YOU are performing drive-by shootings for the pure fun of it.
This, I think, is the reason why more violent acts are attributed to games than films and following on from what I said above is the reason why someone is willing to sue Rockstar, when they would never consider suing Universal or any other film-maker.
Hopefully as time goes on, and gaming is given the same status as films and more ‘parents’ understand the nature of gaming and make more informed decisions over what their children play, this kind of threat will disappear, along with the regular Daily Mail headlines.
One final thing though: I can’t wait to see what the papers make of ManHunt – suffocating someone with a plastic bag – now that’s brutal! The thing is, MH is very similar to the Running Man, but no one got upset about that one, did they?
The controversy with GTA started back with the original incarnation, with a top down perspective and compared to today’s incarnations pretty cartoon-like violence. The current generation of GTA games, takes the impact of these games to a whole new level. As such, the current threat of litigation against Rockstar is unwelcome, although not exactly unexpected.
The basis for the threat against Rockstar is down to a number of reasons:
People are always looking for a scapegoat and as SSXPro said, no one is willing to consider challenging where the 2 teenagers got the gun(s) from, or whether the parents are responsible for not teaching their ‘little darlings’ right from wrong.
There is a general misconception that gaming is a whole is a children’s pass time and as such the concept of a game aimed squarely at the 18+ market is something apparently incomprehensible. That is exactly why parents happily purchase GTA and the like for their children even though it has the 18 certificate and the shop attendant has said that it is not suitable for children. The parent simply sees a game – surely that can’t contain excessive violence – can it?
In defence of these parents, until about 8 years ago, gaming was a kids pass time. It wasn’t until the 2nd half of the 1990’s that gaming became an acceptable way for anyone over 18 to spend their evenings. Games developers and publishers have become aware of this and are making games aimed at this more ‘mature’ audience.
The main comparitor with the videogames is that of the film industry. There are many more films available with more graphic violence and general depravity than a game like GTA could ever contain. While there have been calls to ban these films, the main difference is that if a teenager claims his actions were due to what he saw in film X, the parents are blamed for allowing him/her to watch it in the first place. Have any of the major film makers every been sued for the films they produce? Certainly not and so it follows that because Rockstar has protected itself by getting these games ‘rated’ in the same way a film is, they are no more liable for the actions of these teenagers than , say, Universal would be if these kids attributed their actions to may hours spend watching violent films made by this company.
The vast majority of people can differentiate between reality and a game, in the same way that we know that what we see in films is not real. It is only individuals who are open to these kind of suggestions that would act upon what they experience in these games. The main difference between films and games is that watching a film is a passive pass time, where a game is active. In Vice City YOU are Tommy Vercetti, YOU are running those pedestrians over and YOU are performing drive-by shootings for the pure fun of it.
This, I think, is the reason why more violent acts are attributed to games than films and following on from what I said above is the reason why someone is willing to sue Rockstar, when they would never consider suing Universal or any other film-maker.
Hopefully as time goes on, and gaming is given the same status as films and more ‘parents’ understand the nature of gaming and make more informed decisions over what their children play, this kind of threat will disappear, along with the regular Daily Mail headlines.
One final thing though: I can’t wait to see what the papers make of ManHunt – suffocating someone with a plastic bag – now that’s brutal! The thing is, MH is very similar to the Running Man, but no one got upset about that one, did they?
Lol! Teach them what? Other than the exact mechanics behind how a gun works, what is there that a kid of 10 won't understand? If they have some toy soldier or action man or something then they know its point and pull the trigger.
I see what you mean, and teaching is a good form of prevention, something they try in aids awareness, but what else can you say about guns that isn't already obvious. Tell the kids guns are bad, that they shouldn't be used because people can get killed, and then lock them up. (By them, that means the guns, but locking the kids up would also work).
I see what you mean, and teaching is a good form of prevention, something they try in aids awareness, but what else can you say about guns that isn't already obvious. Tell the kids guns are bad, that they shouldn't be used because people can get killed, and then lock them up. (By them, that means the guns, but locking the kids up would also work).
Or they could do the opposite, and teach kids about guns. I read somewhere about some guy who had already taught his children how to use guns and their dangers, when they were both about ten. Now they completely understand the problems and dangers associated with them.
I agree, peer pressure probably does have its effects, though I'm not sure to what degree. I don't think I'd spend £35 on something I don't like at all, simply to stay friends with somebody. If that's the kind of person they are, then fine, I'm not bothered about knowing them.
This isn't something I've decided on in recent years either. All the way through school, if people were going to be like that, then fine, let them, I wasn't interested. This probably meant I had less good friends than most, but at least I felt I could count on those friends.
Anyway, enough blabbering about that, and back to the peer pressure thing which as you say, does still have its effect. There are plenty of people who would at least lean further in the direction of Vice City because of it. Perhaps they were already considering it, but felt the age rating was too high, but then got tipped over the edge by a friend.
However, that shouldn't be the problem. If the system worked as its intended, the purchase would be prevented. First of all, the shop owners shouldn't sell the game to those under the age of 18, and if they manage this, then similarly, the parents shouldn't go in and buy the game for the kids instead. You could easily argue that if a kid is too young to watch a 15 or and 18, then its also too young to choose for itself whether or not it should be allowed to, so its down to shopkeepers to enforce it.
More seriously though, I could understand a parent perhaps saying to themselves that perhaps their kid is old enough to handle it, but the bit I wouldn't understand at all would be if they also left guns lying round the house. They should be taken away, or at the very least, locked up with ammunition stored seperately.
This isn't something I've decided on in recent years either. All the way through school, if people were going to be like that, then fine, let them, I wasn't interested. This probably meant I had less good friends than most, but at least I felt I could count on those friends.
Anyway, enough blabbering about that, and back to the peer pressure thing which as you say, does still have its effect. There are plenty of people who would at least lean further in the direction of Vice City because of it. Perhaps they were already considering it, but felt the age rating was too high, but then got tipped over the edge by a friend.
However, that shouldn't be the problem. If the system worked as its intended, the purchase would be prevented. First of all, the shop owners shouldn't sell the game to those under the age of 18, and if they manage this, then similarly, the parents shouldn't go in and buy the game for the kids instead. You could easily argue that if a kid is too young to watch a 15 or and 18, then its also too young to choose for itself whether or not it should be allowed to, so its down to shopkeepers to enforce it.
More seriously though, I could understand a parent perhaps saying to themselves that perhaps their kid is old enough to handle it, but the bit I wouldn't understand at all would be if they also left guns lying round the house. They should be taken away, or at the very least, locked up with ammunition stored seperately.
I think this is quite a good subject. becuas eof peer pressure kids are forced to watch films with ratings higher than their ow nages becuase it is cool and there friends will admire them! I can remmeber when I was 12 I had my friends coming round one night so i decided to hide all the U's and PG's fro mmy video cabinet and go get some of my mum and dads films which were mainly all 15 and 18! I told my friend sthat id seen them all but I probbably couldnt even understand the titles!
Still this proves that kids are easily influenced by their friends and if one kid at school has gta and brags about it then all the other will want to get it solely for the reason of staying friends with that kid! stupid but I think we all must have done it when we were kids.
Still this proves that kids are easily influenced by their friends and if one kid at school has gta and brags about it then all the other will want to get it solely for the reason of staying friends with that kid! stupid but I think we all must have done it when we were kids.
The craziest Col! wrote:
> I did put a disclaimer at the end.
Hmm, and how many little kids will be repelled by the weak stomach comment? Most young people would probably look at the thing to deliberately prove that they could, and test themselves almost.
I'm not saying what should be done on here, that's definitely not my place, I'm just saying I'm surprised it hasn't already been deleted, because the link is there, to a horrible thing, regardless of whether there is a comment about weak stomachs. True, you don't *have* to follow the link, but I wouldn't want something like that linked from my site, and I'm not even running a business.
Anyway, enough of that. FFF, about the PSM2 subscription - I believe its just under £40 for 13 issues (something like £38.50). The mag is absolutely fine, I've had no problems with it, the only trouble is that they do send lots of renewal reminders. About four or five months before you are due to renew they start sending out the letters asking you to pay now to save yourself the hassle later. Its a minor niggle, and apart from that, the magazine is excellent.
> I did put a disclaimer at the end.
Hmm, and how many little kids will be repelled by the weak stomach comment? Most young people would probably look at the thing to deliberately prove that they could, and test themselves almost.
I'm not saying what should be done on here, that's definitely not my place, I'm just saying I'm surprised it hasn't already been deleted, because the link is there, to a horrible thing, regardless of whether there is a comment about weak stomachs. True, you don't *have* to follow the link, but I wouldn't want something like that linked from my site, and I'm not even running a business.
Anyway, enough of that. FFF, about the PSM2 subscription - I believe its just under £40 for 13 issues (something like £38.50). The mag is absolutely fine, I've had no problems with it, the only trouble is that they do send lots of renewal reminders. About four or five months before you are due to renew they start sending out the letters asking you to pay now to save yourself the hassle later. Its a minor niggle, and apart from that, the magazine is excellent.
Skank.
I'll be getting a PSM2 subsciption at Christmas then : P
Future do NGC as well, and that rules, and they did Power back in the day. Which ruled most efficiently.
I'll be getting a PSM2 subsciption at Christmas then : P
Future do NGC as well, and that rules, and they did Power back in the day. Which ruled most efficiently.
I did put a disclaimer at the end.
It was done with a shotgun you see.
It was done with a shotgun you see.
Careful what kind of links you go posting on a site like this. I wouldn't be surprised if your post is deleted or altered by the end of tomorrow.
For anyone who hasn't checked out that link, it really is quite nasty, and I wouldn't recommend viewing it.
For anyone who hasn't checked out that link, it really is quite nasty, and I wouldn't recommend viewing it.
Saw this picture and thought of this topic....
http://poetry.rotten.com/shot-au/0003/shotau3.jpg
...don't view if you have a weak stomach.
http://poetry.rotten.com/shot-au/0003/shotau3.jpg
...don't view if you have a weak stomach.
Page: