Videogame Violence

[DQT]

I don't think Bernard Goldberg has ever played a GTA game. The way he described the games was completely off base. He said that the point of the game is to kill cops. That right there shows that he's never played any of the games. He made it seem as though that was the main point of the games. Yes you can kill cops in the games if you choose, but that's one element of the game. I just think that if one has never played a game then they shouldn't give their opinion on it. This is what leads to a lot of arguments that people have against GTA. They never even played the game and they want it off the shelves. It's ridiculous.

[WeaponOfMassInstruction]

Remind me again why it is acceptable to have a game in which it is even possible to kill cops?

[DQT]

Remind me again why it is acceptable to have a game in which it is even possible to kill cops?

Because the game emulates real life. And people can kill cops in real life. You don't have to kill cops in the game at all if you dont want to.

[Jeffreydan]

Remind me again why it is acceptable to have a game in which it is even possible to kill cops?

Because the game emulates real life. And people can kill cops in real life. You don't have to kill cops in the game at all if you dont want to.

I don't see where emulating real life makes it acceptable. I mean, children are abused in real life too, so would it be acceptable for child abuse to be depicted in a video game?

I understand that cops get shot, but I just have difficulty seeing where it's acceptable to depict it.
And even though you find it impossible to fathom, it is possible for someone to disapprove of something without experiencing it first-hand. (I will grant you, however, as long as they don't completely mischaracterize it.)

[steve1633]

There are lots of fiction works that portray things that you shouldn't or wouldn't do in real life. That's the point of fiction, to allow us to "experience" things that we never would otherwise. The games follow a small time criminal rising to prominence within a city's (or cities' in San Andreas) criminal underworld. In the game you can roam freely about the landscape and interact (basicaly rob or attack) anyone you see, sometimes you see cops so you can then attack them. If a kid doesn't know how to distinguish between fiction and reality then the parents need to be more responsible and take a greater interest in teaching their children about the different aspects of the world today.

[CowboyBebop]

I personally don't have a problem with these types of games. I've played these games most of my life, as well as watching ultra violent movies. And I'm a well adjusted adult. Then again, I have great parents and had a good upbringing. In all honesty, I think that has more to do with it than anything else.

[WeaponOfMassInstruction]

Truthfully, that's not all that bad an explanation.

So I guess I'll have to make my question a bit more specific.

Remind me again why it's a good idea to allow the killing of cops being presented as a viable and rewarding option in a videogame?

If I understand correctly, your "boss" in the game will, from time to time, offer you a mission wherein you are required to kill police OR are put in a position where killing police will make whatever the mission's end goal is easier. Now granted you can- probably- go out of your way not to kill police , with the result being that the mission will be to some degree more difficult. But, reasonably, how many players are going to take a more difficult path to attain their goals?

Also, I understand that, the more often you kill police or civilians, the greater the game's AI-controlled police's efforts to find you and bring you to justice, one way or another.

I still say that there would be a far greater outcry against such games if they featured rewards for killing blacks, Jews or, especially, Muslims. Game developers that made those sorts of games would have the Left, the Right, the ACLU and Dr, Phil all over them immediately.

[DQT]

Remind me again why it's a good idea to allow the killing of cops being presented as a viable and rewarding option in a videogame?

You don't get rewarded for killing the cops. If you kill the police it raises your wanted level and makes the game harder for you.

If I understand correctly, your "boss" in the game will, from time to time, offer you a mission wherein you are required to kill police OR are put in a position where killing police will make whatever the mission's end goal is easier. Now granted you can- probably- go out of your way not to kill police , with the result being that the mission will be to some degree more difficult. But, reasonably, how many players are going to take a more difficult path to attain their goals?

I will say it again. Killing police in the game makes the game more difficult. By killing cops you raise your wanted level making more police come after you and eventually it gets to the point where they send tanks, helicopters, and a sort of FBI after you. And I don't recall a mission that requires you to kill cops to make it easier in any of the GTA's.

I still say that there would be a far greater outcry against such games if they featured rewards for killing blacks, Jews or, especially, Muslims. Game developers that made those sorts of games would have the Left, the Right, the ACLU and Dr, Phil all over them immediately

Actually most of the people you have to kill to pass missions and be rewarded are gangsters and minorites. So I don't know where you got that idea from.

[Tiffany]

Hey guys-

DQT is young, and I don't know how old fly and steve are, but Cowboy, maybe you or Weapon will have heard of this.

My bro-in-law (the oldest one, he's 35) introduced me to a new board game over the weekend. Its copyright is 1980, and it's called Assassin.

There was another Assassin game, but I think this one was less mainstream. It's like Monopoly with contraband.

Anyway, my bro-in-law used to play it with his family when he was a little kid and it was his favorite.

You can buy oil, drugs, secrets, gold, diamonds, munitions, plutonium, and stuff like that. Then every square on the board is a city (in St. Louis there's an arch on the square and you can sell drugs or buy weapons or something) and in Bogota you can buy drugs and sell secrets or something.

Anyway, it was hilarious, and under certain circumstances you could make assassination attempts on other players. You can pay for a certain class of assassin, read about what weapons they're good with and other funny things, and it's all completely politically incorrect. One assassin, for example, traveled with a midget. I'm sure it was fine for the time, but looking back on it now, some of the details about the assassins wouldn't be allowed today.

Okay, so it was really funny, and my bro-in-law was into fairly strange smart-people things the whole time he was growing up (master's in chemistry, brilliant and used to make a hell of a potato gun, but not antisocial so it's not scary).

Anyway, it was so fun and it was all about making money on the black market and trying to kill people.

This thread just made me think of it, and I was wondering if anyone ever played it before. Cuz it's way before my time, but after trying it over the weekend, I really like it.

[WeaponOfMassInstruction]

Tiffany-

I don't think I ever played it, but it does sound vaguely familiar to me.

DQT-

I guess you overlooked it, but I did say that the game becomes more difficult if you kill cops or civilians. I understood from the beginning that that was the case.

Still, other than the really l;ackluster argument that it is a reflection of real life- that people can and do kill cops in real life so it's perfectly acceptable to replicate that antisocial behavior in a videogame- you still haven't offered a justification as to what social benefit can be had from a game in which it is tacitly or overtly permissible to kill cops?

I've got a great idea for a game that you can market- an abortion simulator. Hey's that's done in real life too...and it's even LEGAL (unlike killing cops).

And you once again miss the point as to why I mention that games that would present the option of killing gays, Muslims or most any other minority would be deemed unacceptable and its producers and distributors picketed and boycotted by the same people who champion a GTA game. There is a clear double standard that says killing cops is fine but that killing gays isn't (both in the context of a videogame- NOT in real life). Why is that?

[DQT]

Weapons-
It's like you didn't even read my post.

You said that the game rewards you for killing cops.

Remind me again why it's a good idea to allow the killing of cops being presented as a viable and rewarding option in a videogame?

And I am telling you that if you kill cops in the game it makes the game harder for you so it's not rewarding at all. Killing cops in the game provides no rewards at all.

you still haven't offered a justification as to what social benefit can be had from a game in which it is tacitly or overtly permissible to kill cops?

Just because you don't think that it's appropriate to simulate what goes on in real life in a videogame doesn't mean it's wrong. It's just your opinion. A lot of people think the game is fun. If you only want the world to be portrayed as some perfect fairytale land then don't play the game. Rockstar set out to make a game that offers players freedomand somewhat simulated real life. It's not like you can just go around killing cops with no consequences. You get punished for killing the police just like you would in real life. You seem to think that it's not okay to make a game that simulates real life.

I've got a great idea for a game that you can market- an abortion simulator. Hey's that's done in real life too...and it's even LEGAL (unlike killing cops).

This is what makes me think that you're one of those people who thinks that GTA is all about killing cops. Killing cops is just one little part of the game. It's not the main focus of the game at all. And if you want to market an abortion simulator that fine. As long as you portray the negative affects of abortion.

And you once again miss the point as to why I mention that games that would present the option of killing gays, Muslims or most any other minority would be deemed unacceptable and its producers and distributors picketed and boycotted by the same people who champion a GTA game. There is a clear double standard that says killing cops is fine but that killing gays isn't (both in the context of a videogame- NOT in real life). Why is that?

You can kill gays, minorities, and muslims in the game. People just chose killing cops to be the main reason to complain. They like you, have never even played the game and just hear some politician say that you can kill police in the game and they go crazy. Without even knowing anything else about the game. My main advice would be to actually play the game you're criticizing. Do you even know what any of the GTA games are about?

[WeaponOfMassInstruction]

DQT-

Does one have to actually read child pornography to know that it is wrong?

I did read your post; it's you that didn't read mine.

I acknowledge that the game does punish you (in a way) for killing cops by making the game increasingly difficult to complete. I've said that TWICE as a matter of fact.

I just question what good a game that presents the option, for any reason whatsoever, of killing cops truly is. The typical buyer of such a game might very well be predisposed to distrust of authority (occasionally for good reason) so it would appear this game plays to their fears/phobias.

We had a case here in Alabama where a young black kid killed two sheriff's deputies and a dispatcher and he admitted that he couldn't tell the difference between killing cops in a videogame and killing cops in real life.

Now I'm not about to say that everytime a cop is killed is done by a person who played GTA, Saints, Godfather or any others of these ultraviolent videogames. Let me be clear: I'm NOT SAYING THAT!

What I will say is that the game can be bought by people who have a difficult time telling the difference between fantasy and reality and are unable, for various reasons, to separate the two. I'm VERY well acquainted with this because I played fantasy RPGs back in the 1970s when there was an evil aura around them. RPGers back then did occasionally have trouble separating fantasy from reality and they did rarely act out in real life what they did with pencil and paper. Not often....but it did happen. Those of us who were mature enough, even at that age, to differentiate were constantly explaining why others couldn't handle it and that it posed no threat to the public at large. The chief difference is that, while it's kinda tough to find dragons in real life, it's fairly easy to find cops in real life.

Should the publiblishers be able to sell such games? Absolutely...but they should also bear the responsibility for the actions of those players who were too immature to deal with the subject matter successfully.

I've got no problem at all with games simulating real life. I play or have played all manner of historical FPS games like Medal of Honor, fantasy FPS games like Heretic and Hexes and horror FPS games like the Quake series, Unreal Tournament and Half Life. But then I am capable of compartmentalizing the foes I rail gun there and not letting the antisocial things I do ingame bleed (pardon the pun) over into real life. Obviously, some who play GTA and those types of games can't deal with the graphic images of violence. Those are the people that should not be allowed to play the game- for their good and for the good of authority figures as well.

[DQT]

I acknowledge that the game does punish you (in a way) for killing cops by making the game increasingly difficult to complete. I've said that TWICE as a matter of fact.

Did you even read the point that you stated that I quoted. That was the point I was arguing against. This one right here.

Remind me again why it's a good idea to allow the killing of cops being presented as a viable and rewarding option in a videogame?

I just question what good a game that presents the option, for any reason whatsoever, of killing cops truly is.

How many times do I have to say this. You get punished for killing the police in the game. The game was trying to simulate real life. Are they supposed to let you kill anyone except the police? Police do get shot in real life and people who do it get punished just like in the game. They are not promoting the killing of cops. They are showing that it is wrong by punishing you for doing it. What is wrong with teaching people that it is wrong to kill police?

Should the publiblishers be able to sell such games? Absolutely...but they should also bear the responsibility for the actions of those players who were too immature to deal with the subject matter successfully

That is ridiculous. That's like saying that people who sell cars should bear the responsibility of people who get into car accidents because they're drunk. GTA games punish people for killing police. That is teaching people that killing police is bad and wrong.

Obviously, some who play GTA and those types of games can't deal with the graphic images of violence. Those are the people that should not be allowed to play the game- for their good and for the good of authority figures as well.

And who's responsibility is it to make sure that these people you describe don't play the games? Because it sure isn't the publishers. Do you want Rockstar to send a representative to each and every store that sells the GTA games and ask every customer if they are mature and responsible enough to play the game?

So now I don't even know what your position is. First you said that the games are wrong for having the option to kill cops in games. Then you say that they should be able to sell the games. And then you say that the people who aren't mature enough to play the games shouldn't be able to buy them. So what exactly is your position?

[opinionated1]

Okay. This is what I've garnered so far. One side says (or isn't saying) that the game is wrong for giving players the option to kill cops. The other side is saying that the game actually punishes you for doing so. I, myself, am entitled to an opinion, seeing as I've played nearly all the GTA games (except GTA: San Andreas, for having an outtake game that features se), and I see both sides. I know that in all of the games in the series that if you kill cops, they'll send other cops out after you. If that fails, they'll send out a helicopter. If THAT fails, then they'll throw everything they have at you: a SWAT Team, helicopters, and even tanks! If you survive this (without cheating), I'd nominate you for an award. I also see the other side. To exemplify this, I'll tell you a true story. In the year that GTA3 came out, I was at my cousin's house. He was out and said that I could play his PS2 while he was gone. I had then discovered GTA3, and began playing it. I was around the age of 11 or so. When my cousin came back, he took the game out, not because it was "bad", but because I'd actually uttered the phrase "Killing people is fun." He knew that I wasn't mature enough to handle the game. Now that I'm 18, and can legally buy the game, I just choose not to, not because I think the game is a "cop-killer", but because I think that the game just isn't fun. I've got the Nintendo Wii, and all my GameCube games to play on it, and some of them are shooters, like Metroid Prime and Jedi Outcast. I know that the games aren't for anyone to play if they can't handle the games, despite the fact that they're so obvoiusly fictional. However, if I deem somebody mature enough to play these (T-rated) games, then I trust them not to do anything dangerous that they might've seen in the games.

[GrafxMom]

Okay. This is what I've garnered so far. One side says (or isn't saying) that the game is wrong for giving players the option to kill cops. The other side is saying that the game actually punishes you for doing so. I, myself, am entitled to an opinion, seeing as I've played nearly all the GTA games (except GTA: San Andreas, for having an outtake game that features se), and I see both sides. I know that in all of the games in the series that if you kill cops, they'll send other cops out after you. If that fails, they'll send out a helicopter. If THAT fails, then they'll throw everything they have at you: a SWAT Team, helicopters, and even tanks! If you survive this (without cheating), I'd nominate you for an award. I also see the other side. To exemplify this, I'll tell you a true story. In the year that GTA3 came out, I was at my cousin's house. He was out and said that I could play his PS2 while he was gone. I had then discovered GTA3, and began playing it. I was around the age of 11 or so. When my cousin came back, he took the game out, not because it was "bad", but because I'd actually uttered the phrase "Killing people is fun." He knew that I wasn't mature enough to handle the game. Now that I'm 18, and can legally buy the game, I just choose not to, not because I think the game is a "cop-killer", but because I think that the game just isn't fun. I've got the Nintendo Wii, and all my GameCube games to play on it, and some of them are shooters, like Metroid Prime and Jedi Outcast. I know that the games aren't for anyone to play if they can't handle the games, despite the fact that they're so obvoiusly fictional. However, if I deem somebody mature enough to play these (T-rated) games, then I trust them not to do anything dangerous that they might've seen in the games.

Since I have just one child, a ten-year-old girl, I'll admit I don't know much about GTA. On the other hand, I am quite familiar with Barbie and fashion video games. I appreciate your perpective as a young adult. I admire how well you verbalized the position of both sides. Welcome to the forum!