what ever happened to freedom of speech? ok. the game isnt politically correct, sure, it doesnt protray the best side of society. BUT, society is not perfect, portraying a facade of such is harmful - though this game has its bad points, the mere fact that it raises the 'cartoon like violence' that occurs in real-life is testiment to its authors. So long as it says 18+, and any other warnings, then I dont see a problem at all. If people are going to complain about polical correctness and games, why hasnt anyone mentioned the fact that C&C generals came out not too long after the afganistan 'incident', with its strong anti-arab feel, you'd think it'd have been banned, but no...
Hmmm....seems to me another article telling people what to think, and pointing at computer games as the course of societies ills. 10,000 times worse? It would be, if it was real. Sure the game is hellishly violent, bloody, but represents a side of society that has existed for a long time far before computers were commonplace and isn't going to go away just because games stop showing it. Make no mistake, GTA3/VC is a violent game, and I wouldn't have my kids (if I had any that is!) playing it until they were educated enough to know that much of what is shown in the game makes for lots of action, but that it isn't anything that they want to copy or be involved in themselves. I played the original GTA when I was around 13, that showed similar scenes (perhaps not as realistically as GTA3 or VC ) but I knew that it was different from reality, and that playing a violent game would not make me violent, and I could discern between whats 'cool' enjoyable in a game and whats unacceptable and hideously violent to carry out in real life. Aged 18, most people are sufficiently intelligent to see this and the age limit in the UK of 18+ is fine to my mind. I imagine most teenagers younger than this could comfortably play the game and realise that the violence in the game makes for a fun computer game, but is unacceptable in real life (this is for parents to decide, and actually take an interest in what their kids see - but a lot of parents don't seem to care what their kids play or watch, hence an age limit being necessary). Coincidentally, this weekend I spent much of the time playing GTA3 with my cousin David (who is 16). He let his little brother (aged 8) have a go then at dinner time my younger cousin picked up an empty coke bottle and was wielding it like a baseball bat and going 'whack whack' and making as though to hit his dad. Then he told them he 'liked the fighting' in GTA3. His parents were horrified and told my cousin not to let him see the game again. Whilst they were horrified at what he picked up from a computer game, they were fine to let him play fight with a toy sword with his friends. Sure GTA3 is more graphic than the pirate stories a lot of kids get told or read at some time, but pretending to have a baseball bat from GTA3, or sword fighting, or playing cowboys and indians with yoy guns isn't really any different in that its all still somehow showing violence. The article mentions the game 'glorifying violence' - well if it does, what about these old games that children have long played? It shows violence more graphically sure, and in a way that is more realistic, but other than that? Yet somehow the computer game is the only one that apparently warps kids minds and makes them violent and is talked about in pages of news articles, and the rest (cowboys and indians, cops and robbers, playing pirates with toy swords, all which can be seen to promote violence if you think GTA3 is doing the same) are seen relatively as just innocent games played by generations of kids . Why single out a computer game? Because its a relatively new thing, computer games, rather than the previous things that kept children occupied (yet still violence occured in society before computer games)? Its up to the parents to see what their kids are playing/watching and decide whether its suitable or not, and to decide whether their kid is able to separate a fun game from acts that aren't acceptable in society. Going 'omg its violent' and banning a single game won't make violence in society just disappear, but educating people from an early age that violence in the real world is wrong (and that computer games, tv, films etc are separate things from the real world, no matter how much fun a violent game can be or how many people arnie shoots in an enjoyable film), then that might help more. My 2p
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/fun.games/01/01/videogame.suit.ap/index.html k so out of 11 million people that bought vice city, 100 took offence hmm thats an incredibly low percentage and they only want $15k, should just pay em, keep the buggers quiet
no they shouldnt; to pay them would be to admit guilt and would invite further critisism. besides, 15k is never a small amount for anybody.
"Can't we all just learn to get allong?" - or failing that, take a bat and bash in people's skulls who dissagree with our phlosophy..... Btw, did I mention I've played GTA since the first one came out on playstaion? Seriously though, games don't make people violent, the people who DO watch violent things and then do them 99% of the time allready had something wrong with them (be it mentaly or otherwise). So the arguement that something racest in a game is going to spawn racest children is a moote point.
They might aswell complain about everything. I think these people are just idiots, finding every possible fault and then sueing companies. They as well say "hey this is racist they only make iPODS in white !" That's completely ridiculous, how about movies then?
