The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
"I walked steadily over to him, with confidence and certainty in my face. I knew he wouldn't shoot. We'd been stood in the street for more than five minutes now, and I was sure I`d figured him out. He had a gun pointed at me, and he'd threatened many others with it already, but I knew he was only hot air, and no action."
-The thoughts of an innocent citizen trying to solve a dangerous situation on the streets.
"I watched another guy walk towards our assailent, and at first I wanted to shout and warn him to stay back, but then I saw his eyes. Never before had I seen such confidence and determination on a man's face. As he walked closer, I thought that perhaps he might be able to sort out this mess, but I soon regretted my earlier decision not to shout. Without warning, the man with the gun fired his weapon, and in an instant, the man who's expression had conveyed such enormous confidence fell to the floor. A new expression now lay unmoving across his face: Surprise, mixed with shock. Gradually a pool of dark blood began to seap out from his clothing..."
-A statement taken from a witness stood closest to the victim.
"What followed was shocking to everybody involved - not just the victims, but the police, and the whole of the local community. The armed assassin never looked back at his victim. He was as cold as the ice on Neptune, and instantly moved on to his next target. He fired his gun again, two shots this time, and aimed at the tyres of a moving vehicle. The car swerved slightly, before braking hard and coming to an abrupt halt. The armed man raced over to the car, yanked open the door, and pulled the driver out. The owner of the car, who was also the driver, was only 23 years old, but in this brutal world, age didn't matter, and he was hurled to the ground as if he belonged in the sewers."
-A newspaper account written the day after the attack.
"The car pulled away, smoke surfacing behind its rear wheels. It began speeding through dense city traffic, causing numerous other vehicles to swerve and crash. Soon the emergency services arrived on the scene. Police and ambulance groups arrived as one. Some parted to follow the attacker, whilst the rest stayed to attend to the victim, who by now was surely dead."
-Report from a witness arriving on the scene shortly after the initial shooting.
"The police units on the ground followed closely behind the car, keeping with it, but avoiding any direct collisions or collateral damage. From the helicopter, we were able to keep track of the murderer from the air, meaning he had nowhere to go. With the air coordination, it was only a matter of time before the units on the ground were able to set and close a trap around him."
-Description given by helicopter pilot involved in the chase
"During the chase, and eventual capture of the killer, 3 cars were involved in a severe accident due to the reckless driving of the attacker. It resulted in 5 fatalities, and many injuries."
-Doctors report after attempting to treat the victims of the attack.
The question now is: How many people read that, and thought it was funny? Grand Theft Auto 3 frequently involves exactly this kind of violence, perhaps even on a larger scale, with lives lost so frequently, that these deaths go completely unnoticed by the player. I invented the above scenario, but it hardly required me to stretch my imagination. All I had to do was recall my experiences on the game, and suddenly I had a complete story, filled to the brim with violence.
So its not real. True, it isn't. All that you see is just computer created images receiving the same treatment we fear in real life. How far can the realism of the game be taken though before it looks exactly like it does in real life. How far can this be taken before people decide its actually cheaper, and more fun to do these things for real? I'm not saying it will be us, in fact I think most people here would never let themselves get affected by violence in games, but what happens when you put this game in the hands of somebody who is so close to the edge that the demonstration of this kind of violence is all it takes to make that person go and do it themselves?
Violence arises in almost all games these days, and mostly this isn`t a problem. For example, if you take TimeSplitters. The game involves shooting eachother, or computer players, and eventually killing them. However, it is all done in a less realistic, less cold manner, with cartoony characters, and perhaps a more valid reason to do it. You are fighting for your survivial in many games, and this appears to be a more acceptable form of violence. With GTA, there is no reason, no justification, and no excuse for your actions.
-The thoughts of an innocent citizen trying to solve a dangerous situation on the streets.
"I watched another guy walk towards our assailent, and at first I wanted to shout and warn him to stay back, but then I saw his eyes. Never before had I seen such confidence and determination on a man's face. As he walked closer, I thought that perhaps he might be able to sort out this mess, but I soon regretted my earlier decision not to shout. Without warning, the man with the gun fired his weapon, and in an instant, the man who's expression had conveyed such enormous confidence fell to the floor. A new expression now lay unmoving across his face: Surprise, mixed with shock. Gradually a pool of dark blood began to seap out from his clothing..."
-A statement taken from a witness stood closest to the victim.
"What followed was shocking to everybody involved - not just the victims, but the police, and the whole of the local community. The armed assassin never looked back at his victim. He was as cold as the ice on Neptune, and instantly moved on to his next target. He fired his gun again, two shots this time, and aimed at the tyres of a moving vehicle. The car swerved slightly, before braking hard and coming to an abrupt halt. The armed man raced over to the car, yanked open the door, and pulled the driver out. The owner of the car, who was also the driver, was only 23 years old, but in this brutal world, age didn't matter, and he was hurled to the ground as if he belonged in the sewers."
-A newspaper account written the day after the attack.
"The car pulled away, smoke surfacing behind its rear wheels. It began speeding through dense city traffic, causing numerous other vehicles to swerve and crash. Soon the emergency services arrived on the scene. Police and ambulance groups arrived as one. Some parted to follow the attacker, whilst the rest stayed to attend to the victim, who by now was surely dead."
-Report from a witness arriving on the scene shortly after the initial shooting.
"The police units on the ground followed closely behind the car, keeping with it, but avoiding any direct collisions or collateral damage. From the helicopter, we were able to keep track of the murderer from the air, meaning he had nowhere to go. With the air coordination, it was only a matter of time before the units on the ground were able to set and close a trap around him."
-Description given by helicopter pilot involved in the chase
"During the chase, and eventual capture of the killer, 3 cars were involved in a severe accident due to the reckless driving of the attacker. It resulted in 5 fatalities, and many injuries."
-Doctors report after attempting to treat the victims of the attack.
The question now is: How many people read that, and thought it was funny? Grand Theft Auto 3 frequently involves exactly this kind of violence, perhaps even on a larger scale, with lives lost so frequently, that these deaths go completely unnoticed by the player. I invented the above scenario, but it hardly required me to stretch my imagination. All I had to do was recall my experiences on the game, and suddenly I had a complete story, filled to the brim with violence.
So its not real. True, it isn't. All that you see is just computer created images receiving the same treatment we fear in real life. How far can the realism of the game be taken though before it looks exactly like it does in real life. How far can this be taken before people decide its actually cheaper, and more fun to do these things for real? I'm not saying it will be us, in fact I think most people here would never let themselves get affected by violence in games, but what happens when you put this game in the hands of somebody who is so close to the edge that the demonstration of this kind of violence is all it takes to make that person go and do it themselves?
Violence arises in almost all games these days, and mostly this isn`t a problem. For example, if you take TimeSplitters. The game involves shooting eachother, or computer players, and eventually killing them. However, it is all done in a less realistic, less cold manner, with cartoony characters, and perhaps a more valid reason to do it. You are fighting for your survivial in many games, and this appears to be a more acceptable form of violence. With GTA, there is no reason, no justification, and no excuse for your actions.
Page:
Yeah the Tarrant spoilt it again. You pesky kid, we could have got away with a long slagging match if it wasnt for you.
P.S. SSXpro very good argument but you smell of wee wee and cabbage
P.S. SSXpro very good argument but you smell of wee wee and cabbage
I am the Tarrant wrote:
>Argument settled!
Doh! I was just beginning to enjoy it!
>Argument settled!
Doh! I was just beginning to enjoy it!
You sure the nuts inquestion were on the DVD?
Maybe they leaked out your ear and into the packaging
Blooming ell I thought I was off the wall but your clutching the ceiling
Maybe they leaked out your ear and into the packaging
Blooming ell I thought I was off the wall but your clutching the ceiling
I think you've both strayed from the main point, which is; Does GTA3 contain traces of nuts?
Well, I can reliably tell you that after much scientific testing the results inform me that MY copy of GTA3 did infact contain traces of nuts. However, my copy did not have a warning sticker on the box informing me of the possibility of it containing nuts. I myself would not have expected the game to, but after my friend Peter swelled up akin to a balloon after playing the game, I felt I should have it checked out.
Now, I contacted Rockstar who explained to me that, the original design scematics have no nutty produce in them at all, so how traces of nuts got into my copy is something of a mystery.
I sent my friend Daves's copy of the game off for medical testing and the result showed "No nuts", not content I sent off 3 further copies of the game courtesy of three volunteers who have nut allergies running in their gene pool. Again, "no nuts".
I returned to Rockstar and asked them if they wouldn't mind running some in house tests on the original nut containing copy, they obliged more than happily.
What they found was horrifying. Someone, possibly Osama bin Laden, but there is infact no proof to back that up, had tampered with ny copy of the game. Traces of nuts had in fact been applied to the DVD whilst it was in the postal service's less than capable hands.
It was not all bad news though, as Rockstar - who were not responsible for the traces of nuts - replaced my copy of GTA3 for a nutless one and deflated my friend Peter for half the price of the NHS.
Argument settled!
Well, I can reliably tell you that after much scientific testing the results inform me that MY copy of GTA3 did infact contain traces of nuts. However, my copy did not have a warning sticker on the box informing me of the possibility of it containing nuts. I myself would not have expected the game to, but after my friend Peter swelled up akin to a balloon after playing the game, I felt I should have it checked out.
Now, I contacted Rockstar who explained to me that, the original design scematics have no nutty produce in them at all, so how traces of nuts got into my copy is something of a mystery.
I sent my friend Daves's copy of the game off for medical testing and the result showed "No nuts", not content I sent off 3 further copies of the game courtesy of three volunteers who have nut allergies running in their gene pool. Again, "no nuts".
I returned to Rockstar and asked them if they wouldn't mind running some in house tests on the original nut containing copy, they obliged more than happily.
What they found was horrifying. Someone, possibly Osama bin Laden, but there is infact no proof to back that up, had tampered with ny copy of the game. Traces of nuts had in fact been applied to the DVD whilst it was in the postal service's less than capable hands.
It was not all bad news though, as Rockstar - who were not responsible for the traces of nuts - replaced my copy of GTA3 for a nutless one and deflated my friend Peter for half the price of the NHS.
Argument settled!
Fangface wrote:
When I said your honour I meant the judge/magistrate
> etc in the court not the dude on this BB
I know, but I thought the convo was getting a little heavy :-)
I realise you are argueing one side
> of a very controversial argument and I represent the other side.
Thats the best way to argue!
However, if I
> firmly believed increased censorship in games akin to GTA3 would save a single
> life I would strongly support your stance.
That is basically what it boils down to isn`t it. Will it save a life?
I do not believe this is the case
> and to deprive the multitude of a light hearted past time, which gaming is to
> me, is excessive to say the least
See below :-)
I`ll come back later to continue our discussion, but i`ve got to go to a lecture!
When I said your honour I meant the judge/magistrate
> etc in the court not the dude on this BB
I know, but I thought the convo was getting a little heavy :-)
I realise you are argueing one side
> of a very controversial argument and I represent the other side.
Thats the best way to argue!
However, if I
> firmly believed increased censorship in games akin to GTA3 would save a single
> life I would strongly support your stance.
That is basically what it boils down to isn`t it. Will it save a life?
I do not believe this is the case
> and to deprive the multitude of a light hearted past time, which gaming is to
> me, is excessive to say the least
See below :-)
I`ll come back later to continue our discussion, but i`ve got to go to a lecture!
Or are you being sucked into the "the game/film/music
> made me do it your honour" way of thinking which is a lawyers angle to get
> a clients sentence quashed or reduced.
Your Honour has the game himself so he probably wouldn`t care.
When I said your honour I meant the judge/magistrate etc in the court not the dude on this BB
I realise you are argueing one side of a very controversial argument and I represent the other side. However, if I firmly believed increased censorship in games akin to GTA3 would save a single life I would strongly support your stance. I do not believe this is the case and to deprive the multitude of a light hearted past time, which gaming is to me, is excessive to say the least
I would rather see a stronger, more respected police force and court system and an adequate mental health service to deal with the growing number of mentally ill, nutters and weirdos who terrify normal people.
I find your stance interesting in that I assume you are a gamers yourself. Do you only buy fluffy nice games? As ssxpro do you not realise games like SSX encourage youngsters to try dangerous tricks potentially risking their lives and also encouraging anti-social behaviour such as grinding rails.
*tongue firmly in cheek*
> made me do it your honour" way of thinking which is a lawyers angle to get
> a clients sentence quashed or reduced.
Your Honour has the game himself so he probably wouldn`t care.
When I said your honour I meant the judge/magistrate etc in the court not the dude on this BB
I realise you are argueing one side of a very controversial argument and I represent the other side. However, if I firmly believed increased censorship in games akin to GTA3 would save a single life I would strongly support your stance. I do not believe this is the case and to deprive the multitude of a light hearted past time, which gaming is to me, is excessive to say the least
I would rather see a stronger, more respected police force and court system and an adequate mental health service to deal with the growing number of mentally ill, nutters and weirdos who terrify normal people.
I find your stance interesting in that I assume you are a gamers yourself. Do you only buy fluffy nice games? As ssxpro do you not realise games like SSX encourage youngsters to try dangerous tricks potentially risking their lives and also encouraging anti-social behaviour such as grinding rails.
*tongue firmly in cheek*
Fangface wrote:
> In the case of a nut allergy you can get a clear medical proof of the cause and
> effect of nuts to someone with a nut allergy.
Exactly. Which means that you can identify who will be affected, and how they will react.
Similarly if a product on the
> shelves is shown to have a clear medical risk it is rightly withdrawn.
Same again. As the causes and effects are much more clearly defined, it is easy to take a product down, or warn against it. With a computer game, you can`t tell who will be affected and how, until its too late.
>Can you provide clear medical proof that games can cause a clear physical or
> physcological risk?
No, not complete proof. If I could, there wouldn`t be any replies to this topic, as it would just be "the truth" with no need for discussion. However, there is an obvious link that you can`t possibly miss that hasn`t yet been disproved:
You see violence, you learn to accept this violence. You start doing it yourself. GTA3 sends you to prison for about 20 seconds no matter what the crime is, and then releases you. Thats hardly a deterent. If I shoot somebody, I`ll be released the next day? Nope.
Or are you being sucked into the "the game/film/music
> made me do it your honour" way of thinking which is a lawyers angle to get
> a clients sentence quashed or reduced.
Your Honour has the game himself so he probably wouldn`t care.
> In the case of a nut allergy you can get a clear medical proof of the cause and
> effect of nuts to someone with a nut allergy.
Exactly. Which means that you can identify who will be affected, and how they will react.
Similarly if a product on the
> shelves is shown to have a clear medical risk it is rightly withdrawn.
Same again. As the causes and effects are much more clearly defined, it is easy to take a product down, or warn against it. With a computer game, you can`t tell who will be affected and how, until its too late.
>Can you provide clear medical proof that games can cause a clear physical or
> physcological risk?
No, not complete proof. If I could, there wouldn`t be any replies to this topic, as it would just be "the truth" with no need for discussion. However, there is an obvious link that you can`t possibly miss that hasn`t yet been disproved:
You see violence, you learn to accept this violence. You start doing it yourself. GTA3 sends you to prison for about 20 seconds no matter what the crime is, and then releases you. Thats hardly a deterent. If I shoot somebody, I`ll be released the next day? Nope.
Or are you being sucked into the "the game/film/music
> made me do it your honour" way of thinking which is a lawyers angle to get
> a clients sentence quashed or reduced.
Your Honour has the game himself so he probably wouldn`t care.
In the case of a nut allergy you can get a clear medical proof of the cause and effect of nuts to someone with a nut allergy. Similarly if a product on the shelves is shown to have a clear medical risk it is rightly withdrawn.
Can you provide clear medical proof that games can cause a clear physical or physcological risk? Or are you being sucked into the "the game/film/music made me do it your honour" way of thinking which is a lawyers angle to get a clients sentence quashed or reduced.
Can you provide clear medical proof that games can cause a clear physical or physcological risk? Or are you being sucked into the "the game/film/music made me do it your honour" way of thinking which is a lawyers angle to get a clients sentence quashed or reduced.
What do I call acceptable violence? There is no such thing really, but there is "less un-acceptable" violence if that makes sense. The kind of violence that is necessary to stop a war, or prevent a more dangerous thing happening is still hard to accept, but it seems that the positives of the outcome outwiegh the negatives of the input. Ends justifying the means etc...
Violence for fun is different. If you want, you can kill a person on GTA3, and then just stand there kicking them on the ground. You can even start hitting them with a bat, and continue to take it out on an already dead victim. As there is no "end", it can`t possibly justify the means.
As for the figure at the bottom, where a small percentage are affected, it only takes a small percentage to sway the verdict. If there is even a tiny risk like that, then thats all it takes to make a product unsafe. In supermarkets, if 0.0001% are at risk of dieing, or goind insane and killing others then it`ll have to be pulled off the shelves. In the case of specific products that set of allergies... nuts and other things, there is a specific warning, similar to a game carrying an "18" certificate. However there is a major difference. If you are allergic to nuts, you are likely to know about it. If you are potentially an insane criminal, you won`t stop and think, "oh no, I`d better not by that product as it could give me more violent tendencies".
If you want, we can also start a topic about Catalysts too. :-)
Violence for fun is different. If you want, you can kill a person on GTA3, and then just stand there kicking them on the ground. You can even start hitting them with a bat, and continue to take it out on an already dead victim. As there is no "end", it can`t possibly justify the means.
As for the figure at the bottom, where a small percentage are affected, it only takes a small percentage to sway the verdict. If there is even a tiny risk like that, then thats all it takes to make a product unsafe. In supermarkets, if 0.0001% are at risk of dieing, or goind insane and killing others then it`ll have to be pulled off the shelves. In the case of specific products that set of allergies... nuts and other things, there is a specific warning, similar to a game carrying an "18" certificate. However there is a major difference. If you are allergic to nuts, you are likely to know about it. If you are potentially an insane criminal, you won`t stop and think, "oh no, I`d better not by that product as it could give me more violent tendencies".
If you want, we can also start a topic about Catalysts too. :-)
ssxpro, what do you deem acceptable violence?
Is it not worse to depict the shooting of targets as a non brutal action in the case of fur fighters or other games where blood and guts are not shown? A person who is potentially unsettled playing these games could view shooting a target as being fun because the person just falls down and there is no consequence of that action.
In GTA3 at least if you go on a rampage your wanted level goes up and your are either shot or killed. This gives the message although tongue in cheek that if you commit a crime you must suffer for it. Obviously if you die you are returned fit and well in front of a hospital but this is a game not reality.
I understand the game gives the opportunity and encourages violent behaviour in the context of the game but the same opportunity exists in everyday life. The thing which stops us going crazy is conscience and good sound mind and upbringing. The problem to my mind is that children these days (it some cases) at not closely supervised enough by their parents and are not taught right from wrong in school and in the home. They are taught it is OK to be different and to not conform which is fine in some regards but does not enforce the importance of right and wrong.
Games are being blamed now as the cause or catalyst for violent behaviour in the same way films were 10 years ago and the way music was 30 and 40 years ago. The biggest problem is that lawyers will try any trick to get their client off a charge and if that means claiming their client has being affected by the game/film/music and therefore it is not their fault.
Everyone is responsible for their own actions unless they are suffering from bona fide mental illness and should be taught that if you do wrong you have to pay for it.
If kids were taught that if you do wrong you may go to prison and that prison is well nasty they might think about it. Do you really want a hairy man making you his personal "friend" little johny? No I didnt think so.
A long post to give a simple point which purely represents my opinion. People will do horrible things to other people whatever the outside influences - restricting the options of the 99.99% of people who will not be affected is unfair and will solve very little if anything at all.
Is it not worse to depict the shooting of targets as a non brutal action in the case of fur fighters or other games where blood and guts are not shown? A person who is potentially unsettled playing these games could view shooting a target as being fun because the person just falls down and there is no consequence of that action.
In GTA3 at least if you go on a rampage your wanted level goes up and your are either shot or killed. This gives the message although tongue in cheek that if you commit a crime you must suffer for it. Obviously if you die you are returned fit and well in front of a hospital but this is a game not reality.
I understand the game gives the opportunity and encourages violent behaviour in the context of the game but the same opportunity exists in everyday life. The thing which stops us going crazy is conscience and good sound mind and upbringing. The problem to my mind is that children these days (it some cases) at not closely supervised enough by their parents and are not taught right from wrong in school and in the home. They are taught it is OK to be different and to not conform which is fine in some regards but does not enforce the importance of right and wrong.
Games are being blamed now as the cause or catalyst for violent behaviour in the same way films were 10 years ago and the way music was 30 and 40 years ago. The biggest problem is that lawyers will try any trick to get their client off a charge and if that means claiming their client has being affected by the game/film/music and therefore it is not their fault.
Everyone is responsible for their own actions unless they are suffering from bona fide mental illness and should be taught that if you do wrong you have to pay for it.
If kids were taught that if you do wrong you may go to prison and that prison is well nasty they might think about it. Do you really want a hairy man making you his personal "friend" little johny? No I didnt think so.
A long post to give a simple point which purely represents my opinion. People will do horrible things to other people whatever the outside influences - restricting the options of the 99.99% of people who will not be affected is unfair and will solve very little if anything at all.
Page: