News Rockstar under fire over bullying game

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2005/08/10/Rockstar_Bully/

 

no, giving it an adult rating will stop "younger family members" from buying it, their parents are supposed stop them accessing it if an older sibling buys it :tard:

 

If it's AO then fair enough. But her argument is retarded because it implys that all AO/18 entertainment material will be seen by kids making the whole ratings system useless. Her argument implys that all porn will be seen by kids, or cinemas will eventually show 18 movies to kids etc.

On the other hand, GTA may have all sorts in it but it's adults that carry it out and are therefore legally responsible for their actions but setting it in a school, with kids is just wrong.

 

If you can have a game where u can kill people etc, i would have said that bullying was fairly tame in comparison. Sure it's unpleasant, but so is killing someone with a *****!

IMO this is just the old idea that what people do in computer games will then be mimicked in real life. It doesn't matter whether in-game content is "appropriate" as you do things in games that u wouldnt do in real life.

 

not a good year for rockstar...

 

I think there is a line to be drawn here. I can't see the appeal of a game which has the goal of bullying people. Would someone dare make a game where the goal is to lure and rape women or train and carry out suicide bombings? Even if it is supposed to be only accessible to adults we still have something called decency and just because something isn't real doesn't mean we should ignore it.

Then again it's hard to say that a game set in a fictional world where raping and torturing women is not ok but a game set in a fictional world where killing and robbing is fine.

Personally I can't see the appeal of a bullying game. Most bullies are ignorant idiots. Why would I want to role play someone like that?

 

LAWMAKERS AND POLITICIANS JUDGE VIDEO GAMES WITHOUT PLAYING THEM, NEWS AT 11

To be honest, I've stopped blaming the activist groups for this junk. It's their right to protest, and at least they usually have valid complaints even if they ignore other equally negative aspects of the game. Instead, I blame the politicians who are so concerned about losing votes, they will pass any law that the majority favors regardless of what it says. Consider that over 50% of the senators who voted to pass the Patriot Act admitted to never actually reading it.

Dex -> I agree, this is violence for the sake of violence, but when that happens the protests become redundant because the market realizes the game for what it is. Consider Manhunt; people were up in arms about the violence, but the game was never banned. Why not? Because it didn't sell well enough to become a problem in the first place.

I think part of GTA's problem was the fact that it was so popular before the mod was exposed. It made the problem much less abstract when parents read the paper and thought "Wow, what a dumb thing for a company to do. Better not let - wait a minute, MY CHILD ALREADY OWNS THAT GAME! To arms!" By the time the news broke, the game was already in the hands of the kids they were trying to protect, so backtracking was the only option.

 

Scary, innit? At least you're safe North of the Border, eh?

 

Yeah. At least that makes a few of y'all. That act was scary as hell, and now we are looking at another 10 years of it. Wonderful.

True sunsets every 4 years should be mandatory.

Anywho, back on topic. The game is distasteful in its own right, but that doesn't mean it should be banned. It'll get its AO rating, and that's that. Anyone who's that impressionable by the age of 18 (assuming parents actually do this stupid little thing called PARENTING and therefore minors wouldn't have it) needs to be shot so they can't breed.

Of course, I do fear that with all the sex, drugs, and violence, parents may say "What could be so bad in a game about bullying? At least nobody is dying"...and consider that a little bit more license to buy the game for their 14 year old.

And you DO have to wonder who the target market is for this game. I mean, how many people in their 20s really relate to bullying your prep-school chums enough to want to play a video game based on it?

 

The line should be drawn, this game is just a bad idea. Sure you can kill people in GTA, but how many people that play it know people in the mafia or in gangs, or are really able or crazy enough to do most anything in that game. But this game is something different, I personally don't want to see people mostly kids idolizing picking on and beating up their fellow peers. I read an article a month ago and rockstar said they were going for a teen rating, not AO or M. Bullying in any form shouldn't be encouraged, coming from someone that has been bullied. Columbine could have been alot worse than it was and we don't want to see anyworse caused by kids being dicks to other kids. Sure most 15 and ups won't mimic a game, but the 9 and 10 year olds that will get their hands on this game even if it gets an M rating will. I sincerly doubt they will release it with an AO rating.

 

Seriously though, this is all going a bit far. It's ridiculous the ammount of blame that can be shifted from bad parenting to OMFGDEVILGAMES!!!!11111
I hate it. I wish people would take responsibility for their own actions, and the actions of those they are responsible for.

 

This, like GTA:SA, IS saying that violence is not just acceptable but good. Yes, bad parenting is still a major factor, but I think games like this DO affect people that way (and I'm one to say that all of the politicians are full of bull regarding video game violence)

 

I thought this game featured the guy who GETS bullied? But I do have to question whether this is a good idea or not. I mean, no normal person is going to go out and kill a hooker because they did it in GTA, but I can see a kid thats getting bullied being inspired to do something about it after playing a game like this. I think the bottom line is going to depend on how far Rockstar goes with this idea, and it's a little premature to be having this discussion without knowing what the narrative is like.

 

What? So you want kids to continue getting bullied, getting injured emotionaly for life, and grow up with more mental baggage then michael jackson? Or would you rather see kids rebell against bullys, push them down into the ground, and gain control of the playground for the normal, peaceful kid.

Yeah, I think I'll go with your option there

This, I agree 100% with you on, and there is no need what so ever for ANYBODY to have a go at this game BEFORE ANY REAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN RELEASED ABOUT IT. It's like saying "Your child will be the devil because your going to name him 'bob'!!!!! I can see it now!!!"

 

I got bullied once, well for about 10 seconds. Let's just say I reacted in an overly violent manner and in the end he got taken to hospital with a broken jaw and a very mangled hand - I decided to repeatedly stamp on it (and his face) when he hit the ground.

It's safe to say I got expelled for a short period of time, heh I got back before he did All in all it wasn't a bad day at school considering it was only my second day at secondary school.

Note: I went to a good old fashioned all boys school (no girlies!!) - you learn the same rules as a prison - shanked or be shanked - without the shank of course . In that kind of environment everyone’s a bully and there were only the grades of vilolence to differentiate between us all.


As for the game... well.... I would play it if it was set in the UK with proper English accents, it would probably amuse me.

 

*bully campaign*

Ohh, poor baby, do you need your diaper changed?

 

From what I've read (interview with the producer) the game will be like any bullying you see in a movie, from beating kids up to giving them swirlys (in dirty used toilets I might add). If I can find the mag I saw it in I'll give you some quotes. The only problem with this game is that according to the interview that was done around the time of e3, the producer said they were shooting for a teen rating, meaning tons of 7-10 year olds with no maturity or individuality will get their hands on it, and will go to an environment where they can mimic the game daily.

 

OK found the article it's in issue 147(July) of GMR. It states that the game will feature "No blood, graphic violence, and the overall tone is comic mischeif." Also like I stated is expected to get a teen rating in Oct.

 

I agree. The responsible parenting thing would be not to let your child get their hands on it. If you do let them get it - you have no recourse. You can't say "Ohhhhh. Little Johnny's all violent because of the video games he plays". That's your fault as a parent.

Personally I don't think the game should go ahead. As has been pointed out, what adult really want's to engage in a game of being a school boy beating up on other school boys. If they're then aiming at a teen audience, then it's just too close to reality to for good taste. Blowing the crap out of mutant zombies, deathmatches on alien worlds, engaging in organised crime; these are all situations that we are unlikely to encounter and emulate. Presenting impressionable youth with a "how to" guide on bullying - that's not something to be encouraged.

Yes I know I haven't seen, played or even read a great deal about the game. I'm talking of general principles here.

 

Agreed, and quite well phrased, Constructacon.