Timewaster's Guide Archive
Games => Video Games => Topic started by: House of Mustard on October 23, 2003, 03:03:57 PM
-
http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/23/technology/grandtheft.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes
It's the same old 'the game made me do it' argument, but law experts say they might actually win this time.
-
Here's my argument against that:
Crazy people are going to be crazy, and there's not much you can do about it. Maybe when they go nuts they'll mimic a game, or a movie, or a book, or a war story their grandfather told them. Whatever. Either way, you shouldn't sue creative people for inspiring uncreative people who also happen to have no hold on reality. People are responsible for their own actions.
-
Who are these "law experts," and what are their grounds for thinking the suit will win? It seems just as frivolous as all the other suits.
-
Heh, thanks for the heads up Tage. Note to self: Do something creative when going crazy/insane.
-
No idea who the legal experts are, or why they said it.
-
Just a question.
Are you arguing that the information a "creative person" puts out there has no impact or influence on the person who reads/views/plays?
-
Everyday so many violent movies are unleashed on to the so called innocent public. Don't you feel that people have already been desanitised to all the violence and gore. Do you really believe that pixelated gore is going to make any real difference when there is enough reel life stuff to do that. LOL :D at the LAW EXPERTS.
-
so you are saying that it doesn't affect people at ALL? in ANY way?
-
I had mixed feelings when I heard about this new 'the computer game made me do it' debacle. My fast-twitch reaction was actually quite positive, as I despise Grand Theft Auto 3 and it's ilk (note to avoid unnecessary arguments: I didn't say it was a bad game.) and would be happy if I never saw another game like it again.
On the other hand, I feel that the basis for the lawsuit is without merit, as much as the one filed recently against the NFL due to the actions of a drunken fan.
I was also disturbed to think of the implications a successful lawsuit might have on th video game industry. Yes, I would rather see a swing away from some of the worst offenders, such as GTA3, but if legal precedent was set for game-makers being responsible for the actions of their viewers, what sort of games would be 'safe' to make for a manufacturer. The kids with the rifle could have named Starcraft or a host of other games as their inspiration just as easily as GTA3.
While I disagree with the assertion that a game company should be held responsible for the acts of those who play it (something out of their control) I don't think they should be left totally unaccountable for what their games inspire, (something they DO have control over) though. Where does the line fall and how do you make it work? Beats me.
-
Have you seen the movie Ravenous? If you haven’t do so today. It’s got a million times more violence and disgusting gory scenes than even Postal. No one tried to censor it. That movie can easily inspire anyone to become a Cannibal. At least anyone who claims that he can be negatively inspired by a video game. The solution lies in endorsing a stricter rating policy and making sure that the games don’t fall into wrong hands in the first place. Parents can also contribute a great deal by monitoring their children’s gaming habits.
-
ok, Prometheus' post has convinced me to tell you my thoughts.
I think you'd be absolutely ignorant to claim that ANYTHING you read, watch, listen to, or play has no effect on you. of course it does. If not, than it's not communication. If it's not communication, then there's a VERY good argument that it's not protected by free speech. In which case, any town with a population of 5 yokels and a sheep can pass a law calling it illegal and yes, you'd go to jail for playing it in their town.
HOwever, yes, it IS speech and communication, and therefore protected by the Constitution. For that reason, I hope the suit fails. On the other hand, I agree with prometheus, I don't care about the game play, it's a sick sick game that glorifies really disturbing behavior and convinces you it's fun. I would like to see less of that too. I dont' worry that much about violence, but I like to have at least a cover story that the violence is justified and not just for kicks or money.
yes, I'm sure that "Helter Skelter" agitated Charles Manson, I'm sure that GTA3 agitated some teenagers. I'm sure that lots of movies and songs and games have influenced people into decisions that were anti-social (such as Mein Kampf). Media DOES have that influence. This is WHY communication is protected explicitly in the U.S. Constitution: not because it's harmless and ineffective, but because it influences and alters. Games like GTA3 (and granted, I've not played it, but I've never had anyone even try to argue that it has some other ultimate point) are simply making it look like fun to commit violent crimes. what other influence could such a communication have than to encourage you to do such a thing?
Now, two more things before I get flamed.
1) I still side on the free speech of this issue. Even though a victory for the game will encourage other disgusting games, I think restricting the Constitutional right in this case will cause much more harm than good.
2) Remember the monocausationalism discussion? Just as it is foolish to think that GTA3 had nothing to do with changing the mood or ideas of the kids who play it, it's equally foolish to say that the game is the only thing responsible for such behavior. It clearly isn't. There are hundreds of other factors, and at least dozens that are as equally influential as their electronic entertainment. the media and the "law experts" need to stop trying to find quick and easy solutions for societal ills or they're just going to magnify them.
-
Have you seen the movie Ravenous? If you haven't do so today.
I don't see how seeing a MORE sickening film has anything to do with the impact a game has on the mind of the player. If the argument is that all people have become more desensitized than the capacity a game has to influence, I think you're very wrong. It may be the case in a few select cases of people you know and people like them, but it's not the case with teh public at large.
-
I just feel that people who don't like such games should avoid them. But there are people who enjoy playing such games because they find them fun and they know that they won't wake up the next morning and start shooting at people. They play it just beacuse they take it for what it really is-just a videogame. They don't translate their actions from the games into real life. There is a way around this problem and I've already mentioned it. Stricter rules governing the rating system and a sense of responsibility among grownups who presently think that raising their kids is the duty of somebody else. By the way- The game America's Army was released By the US Army-which by the way is a govt organisation. I think it involved just as much killing if not more than GTA3.
So if you don't like something just don't play it, but please don't expect others to change their likes and dislikes to meet your approval.
-
You're missing every single point of my argument, so here's a recap:
a) video games DO affect behavior, however
b) they are not the sole factor in that determination
c) it doesn't have much to do with the level of violence, it's how the violence and it's causes and consequences are portrayed.
d) no one ever said anything about making you change your tastes, I don't know why you even think that's an issue
However, to address the "rating" system, I think that's a vain attempt at trying to nod at something being done. All sorts of teenagers have access to pornography, despite a strong rating system, and not just on the Web, but in videos and magazines. Same with alcohol and drugs.
-
Well then some other measures should be taken to restrict access to such games. Banning the game companies from making such games is not a real solution either.
I think some people are afraid to take sides on this matter just to avoid the risk of sounding politically incorrect so to speak. On one had ppl say that such games exert bad influence on the society and on the other they feel that if ppl commit a crime under their influence(if such a thing is possible), then the agents propagating and developing such media should be allowed to go scott-free. I think that perfectly defines hypocrasy. Just make up your mind ppl- which side are u?
-
Well, that's a bit over-simplified.
Yes, I am saying that there shouldn't be a serious consequence: I think they shouldn't be accountable. Because I believe that Free Speech is a higher value than the influence they have. I think that the makers of that foolishness should take responsibility themselves. That's really the only way to fix it. You can't legislate morality.
-
Well you can't exepect to get the best of both worlds. If they accept the responsibility then a legal precedent would be set for all other future cases regarding videogame disputes- and you don't want that either. But you also want the company to own up responsibility- so you can pretty much see how futile the situation really is.
-
Not at all.
They could take personal responsibiltiy by saying they will no longer produce material with that subject matter. It has nothing to do with winning/losing the case. Like I said, the point is that it isn't the sole cause, and so long as none of the other causes are held to blame, then the video game can't be held legally responsible. It would in fact, be unethical and hypocritical to do so.
-
If I were rockstar games I would never want to loose a money making franchise like the GTA series. It would be like Microsoft announcing that they would stop developing Operating Systems because ppl can exploit the inherent security holes within them and send malicious code to other networks. It would be unrealistic to expect Rockstar to make such a move. Like I said the situation is futile.
-
Yes, exactly. they won't take personal responsibility. which is why I don't think much of them personally. I don't think that money justifies the lax in personal integrity. Using it as an excuse is pretty weak.
But no, I don't think it's futile. I believe that people can improve themselves, you're not locked into decisions made, you can change them. You can always make a difference by not accepting what's wrong in society.
-
Do you think that the makers of Spranos should come out and appologise if some loony gets inspired by the events events from the show, which by the way is being broadcast on many free to air channels that is accessible by viewers of all age groups. I really don't think that Rockstar should appologise to anyone. They haven't committed any crime.
-
Yes, I do.
But you don't apologize because you committed a crime. You apologize because you did something wrong. Not every wrong deed is outlawed.
-
I got sucked into reading this thread, so I thought I would make a comment visa vie my own opinion.
Videogames that glorify commiting violent crimes, or immoral acts, imo, are sick and wrong in a way I try not to think too much about.
That being said, however, it is not my place to dictate the actions of whatever production company released it. I wish that they would come out and apologize for the filth they have propegated into society, but they probably won't. I do think there are things that can be done, by utilitizing my own right to free speech without violating theirs.
A) Letters to the editor of game magazines or to the CEO of the company often have an effect. Sometimes such correspondance is a valuable piece of evidence when looking at a product's success.
B) Word of mouth. Often parents don't realize what a game is about, and if they did know, they would remove it from their house.
/me steps down off the soap box
-
I'm kind of intrigued by this moral backlash against "games that glorify violence," given that 95% of video games (and probably 98% of the games you play) are violent in nature. As possibly one of the only people on this forum who has actual experience with GTA (I haven't played, just watched it played), I can assure you that it doesn't glorify violence any more than any other shooter game--in fact, it provides real consequences for violence that arguably make it more moral than many of its competitors.
But even if you object to all shooters, and all forms of video game violence, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most of you really like the Matrix and the Lord of the Rings--movies that glorify violence in a very direct, adrenaline-pumping way. Do you want the Wachowski brothers to apologize as well? Or are you holding movies and games to different standards?
-
See, that's not the story I heard about it. like I said, it's not just the violance, it's the portrayal. Your goal in GTA is not to save the world or to defend innocent people or to fight for freedom, it's to do personal violence to people, either for kicks or money. When people talk about GTA, they talk about the cool things they've done, like leave the old lady bleeding so the ambulance you want to hijack (after doing in the driver) will come. I think that's very different from a action battle sequence in LOTR between two armed people where the person we're rooting for is doing it to save the world as he knows it.
-
I have not played GTA3, but I have a very good idea of how video games work in general. Yes, people who are not major gamers often comment about how good GTA3 is because of the violent comment. But the thing is, a would be willing to bet the violence is not why they enjoyed the game, but the fact that the game itself was very good. It had freedom to do what you wanted, presented challenging mission based goals, and had a good engine.
People who don't analyse games don't realise how these things interact to make a good game, and so cite the violence as the reason they enjoyed it. But there's more to it than that. Case in point: Look at all the bad games out there that are violent, but don't receive so much attention.
People need to take personal responsibility. You played a game, so you shoot people? Anyone who doesn't have a severe mental defect can tell the difference between real life and a game, and if someone was mentally ill, anything, be it a game or movie, could have set them off.
Finally, Video games are not toys. It's time parents started taking some responsibilty, such as not giving five year olds games marked "15+" Would the same parents let the child watch a horror or pornographic film? Hopefully not, although now I think about it, some parents are that irresponsible.
-
Ok this would be my last post in this thread. I really don’t think that writing letters to anyone is going to be of any use. Fellfrosch rightly cited some other gory games that we are perfectly comfortable to play with just because they are based on a historical or fantasy setting. A person playing a MMORPG is also free to do whatever he wants to. How is GTA3 any different from any of these games? Also I agree with Paladin’s logic that no sane person would mimic the acts potrayed in the games in the real world. I know I wouldn’t- and I love GTA3.
-
You don't think letters will help because you don't acknowledge that communication can affect people and their decisions. But then, why are you writing your post?
Like I said, it's FAR from the only influence, but it IS one of those influences. I never said anything about the people who played games and why. I said the communication involved is what's important.
-
Saint, jeez. I have played all four GTA games (GTA1,2,3, vice city). I also played demos of Carmageddon 1 - 3. They have mucho violence, yes. But guys, remember half life? Remember taking a crowbar to a marines head? That was more in-your-face violent than anything in carmageddon or GTA. GTA et all are pure fun; 21st century arcade games.
These games actually help to reduce stress and let you blow off a little steam. GTA is a very funny game. Sick, yes. But funny. And you have fun with it, and can get rid of your aggression on computer game characters - infinitely better than doing the same to real people.
Put it this way saint. I played Doom (18 rated) when i was about 7 - 9 i think. I have played a lot of violent games, watched a lot of violent films in the intervening years. I have a bad temper, yes. I have violent thoughts (when customers try to return fireworks >_<) yes. But i don't act on them. I doubt there is anybody in this world, barring mother teresa (who doesn't really count since she's dead) who has NOT had violent thoughts, or lost their temper. You don't see me, richard my friend who owns all the GTA games, maus my friend who spends multiple hours a day playing online shooters (and savage, which he loves) walking into our old college and gunning people down. Thats because we a) are not insane and b) have a conscience. Something the columbine guys didn't. They could have been pushed over the edge by seeing a icecream van drive by when they wanted one, if they could have been influenced by a 9 year old game.
Also; GTA sold how many copies? Several million? How many people have done this sort of thing? Half a dozen? I think the numbers are so low they show that any link is pretty much negligable.
But i can tell saint isn't going to let this go.
-
I'm not letting it go because you keep completely missing my point.
Tell me when I have EVER said that playing GTA makes you shoot dozens of people in a bloody massacre.
that's ok, i'll wait.
Ok, yeah, that's right. I HAVEN'T SAID THAT. In fact, I have been very careful that every time I say that playing computer games can influence your behavior to state clearly that I don't think it's the only influence. In fact, I have stated that there are THOUSANDS of influence on behavior. And that there are at least dozens that are bigger factors in immediate behavior. Apparently, no one understands that even when i put it into as plain English as I can.
Do an experiment, though. do something calming next time you need to release some pressure instead of caternig to the urge even in a virtual way. I think you'll find that you're more relaxed -- most people do. And no, before you jump on that wagon, I'm not saying to ignore the pressure. I'm not saying to hold it all in. I'm saying you need to deal with your pressure and stress, but in a different way than you're currently doing. You may find it helps more.
Again, i am NOT saying that video games are a waste of effort and energy. would I be such a fan of NWN if I thought that? (ok, maybe, yeah, it IS time waster's guide after all). But I AM saying that video games are among many contributors to influencing behavior. And I am saying that in most cases, violent video games are no the best way of dealing with stress.
-
/me uses his highlander fit ability to strike down the flame bait monster
Incidentially, this is the 30th post, and the 100th page view. That pleases me.
-
/me uses his lemur leaping ability to leap out of the way, and follows up by calling in an airstrike by his ninja assassin priests.