GTA on 60 minutes

[Bob The Mercenary]

Brian's news post couldn't have been more timely. I just saw a commercial for Sunday's episode of 60 Minutes. Here's the story preview from the CBS website:

GRAND THEFT AUTO - Can a violent videogame called Grand Theft Auto be responsible for an 18-year-old murdering three people? That's what the families of the victims are saying in a lawsuit and to Ed Bradley.

We've argued enough in this forum about video game violence. We all know it doesn't cause violence in children, but I'd like to see just what new information this story has to offer. I'll also probably be taping it for my video game violence persuasive speech I have to give in two weeks.

[Lucerin Red]

What the families should do is learn from penny arcade and sue the USA for harboring such a criminal company.

[Osterbaum]

What people should do is learn to see things from more than just one narrow minded perspective.

And perhaps people should realize what is real and what is not.

[Cheerful Coffin]

i don't know why people get so up and arms over a few murders.. don't you know the more people die the less taxes we have to pay?! :thief:

[DragonDaimyo]

I talked to an old teacher of mine a couple of days. He a fun guy, but he's one of those guys who are still stuck in the 80's technology-wise.

He was substituting for my Computer Science class, so we naturally got steered towards computers. We somehow got on the topic of GTA3. Now I by no means approve of GTA3, but he just went ballistic over the game. (It didn't help that he had only heard of it a few days ago. How that's possible I have no clue, but it is what it is.) It was... interesting.

[adamark]

i don't know why people get so up and arms over a few murders.. don't you know the more people die the less taxes we have to pay?! :thief:
What the hell?

[Viktor Von Russia]

i don't know why people get so up and arms over a few murders.. don't you know the more people die the less taxes we have to pay?! :thief:

Yeah, this ain't the Off Topic forum, guy. Unless you were serious. In which case...well, I don't want to get into that.

*Ahem*

Anyways, I'd just like to say that anyone who blames a video game for something like this is just stupid. Chances are, the parents are probably to blame. Or more likely, the kid himself is just messed up.

[Kuja]

Those three people had been cops. I think the BIGGER tragedy here was that a kid with no experience outside of video games was able to disarm an officer, shoot him, shoot two other officers, then escape in a police car.

Just who the heck is protecting the citizens of Fayette, Alabama anyway?

[senfood]

The news piece was biased. They only had one guy on in defense of the gaming industry. Plus, they got the game development company wrong. They said it was T2 Interactive (?) when it's really Rockstar. I'm not defending what that kid did at all, I'm saying that the courts should lt him take responsibility for his own actions instead of scapegoating the gaming industry based on an analogy he used.

[Sandrock]

I would feel that video games such as GTA "could" effect some kids. Mostly like really heavy LD ones and the dummys you can trick [such as Fighter.]

Video Games do have results how people act. Like people who played a puzzle game seemed to do better at a real puzzle [or something like that] if Video Games are linked to Murderings I dont know.

[Bob The Mercenary]

No matter how realistic a FPS you play, you will never be able to aim and fire a gun properly without actual experience with a firearm. First-person shooters supply you with a joystick and a targeting reticle. At firing ranges you use your hands and one or two sites on the gun. Plus, you can alter the sensitivity of your turns on the x-axis in some games, something completely unrealistic.

[Viktor Von Russia]

I would feel that video games such as GTA "could" effect some kids. Mostly like really heavy LD ones and the dummys you can trick [such as Fighter.]

It might be able to affect some people, sure. But you can't say the people who made the game are responsible for the actions of the players. To put this into perspective, imagine if someone sued MLB after some kid killed someone with a baseball bat. After all, baseball taught him how to swing the bat, right?

[h4x.m4g3]

Or for another example, how bout we sue the WWE everytime someone gets injured when attempting to imitate a wrestling maneuver, or even a more realistic law suit ow bout we sue a dojo everytime one of its pupils injures or kills someone else using the techniques taught to him.

I really wish I had seen this episode if anyone could give me a synopsis it would be appreciated. But I have a few questions.

1. How did he get his gun, assuming he was originally armed here.
2. I know its been said before, but how do you disarm two police officers AND escape in their car? This leaves me to two possible conclusions.
a. The cops are REALLY REALLLY badly trained or
b. This kid had more than just a video game teaching him. Video games don't teach you how to aim, load, reload, turn off the safety, or disarm a gun. Real weapons don't have a reaload button, and a joy stick to target with.

[Patrat]

1. Grabbed it from the policeman's holster.
2 Shoot them and anyone around in the <bleep> HEAD!
3. You dont need trianing on how to aim at point blank range.
4. The game was EXACTLY replicated on the show. They didn't even have to shoot a reinactement, they just took it from game play. And i haven't even touched a gun, yet EVEN i know how to reload one! The kid spent hours each day playing this waste of a game. Your attitude towards this offends me most most likley others.Don't to blame police triaing on a stupid <bleep> HEAD'S idiocracy. There is no way that they could have known or had time to think that the kid had reinacted this with a game.
However. The part i find is equally Agravating is that the people are suiing, wal-mart, sony, gamestores that sold it, and many many more. Does anyone know hy exactly they are suing them? Becuase how much money can people get from this kid and his family? Chances are not much. SO LETS SUE THE PEOPLE WITH MONEY, BECUEASE WE'RE ALL GREEDY <bleep> HEADS! In all i think that this Whole thing is one more reason i find that society in general are just pricks. *checks off another reason*

[Viktor Von Russia]

Or for another example, how bout we sue the WWE everytime someone gets injured when attempting to imitate a wrestling maneuver

If Mick Foley's books are any indication, people love doing just that.

And Patrat, man, calm down. I'm sure he didn't mean to imply that the officers deserved to die or anything. You have to keep in mind that he didn't see that particular episode (neither did I for that matter). So not everyone knows the facts, and someone's bound to say something that seems ignorant in context of the report. Try to bear with us. And if you could, please don't second guess people by saying that what they have to say is "pointless and idiotic."

[death raven]

only a retard whould do a murder they did on a vid game and thoes are people that need constant supervision and shouldn't be playing thoes type of games in the first place

[h4x.m4g3]

As Viktor said Patrat, i hadn't seen the episode so I was wondering how the kid actually did it. I mean aren't police officers suppose to keep their guns saftied in the hip holster. What I was trying to point out was that the kid had some kind of experience with a gun this obvious wasn't some random spur of the moment thing, he had planned and probably trained for it.

Under the circumstances I can't blame the officers, but considering their blaming it on GTA:3 I was thinking that the kid ACTUALLY DID SOMETHING FROM THE GAME. You know just walk up with a pistol and start shooting these two armed officers. I mean even after playing and beating GTA:3 several times I never found the button that takes the gun out of an officer's holster. Only way I found to get a gun was buy it, or punch someone in the face till he dies and take it off his corpse.

Viktor what I was trying to point out is that there are alot of different entertainment medias that show how to injure and kill people. We can't just blame every show/game/movie etc when someone imitates them. I mean I didn't go off shooting people after seeing Rambo, or try to box everyone I meta after seeing Rocky 1-1 billion.

[Kuja]

CLEARING UP A MISCONCEPTION:

It was three officers. The kid was getting booked, and wasn't handcuffed. With the cop off guard, he swiped the officer's pistol, plugged him, plugged the other two cops, and then made his getaway.

No matter how realistic a FPS you play, you will never be able to aim and fire a gun properly without actual experience with a firearm. First-person shooters supply you with a joystick and a targeting reticle. At firing ranges you use your hands and one or two sites on the gun. Plus, you can alter the sensitivity of your turns on the x-axis in some games, something completely unrealistic.

Very true. Real guns are at the very least, not light. Most people can't work a gun properly their first time around one. They'll close their eyes and look away when they fire, even drop the gun. There's no way somebody plugs someone else, even a cop at point black range unless they've already had some experience, or they're just that twisted and morbid.

We actually discussed this topic at another forum I attend, but it wasn't about the 60 minutes bit, it was about an article about how this lawyer, in response to this incident, was going to sue Take Two, Rockstar, Wal-Mart, Gamestop, and SCEA.

Grand Theft Auto sparks another lawsuit

Rockstar parent Take-Two Interactive, Sony, Wal-Mart, and GameStop are blamed for the murder of three policemen by a teenage car thief.
Just when the furor over Grand Theft Auto: Vice City's "Kill all the Haitians!" level had finally died down, the game sparked another lawsuit. Along with its predecessor Grand Theft Auto III, the crime-action game is being blamed for inspiring the triple murder of three Fayette, Alabama, police officers.

Devin Thompson, 18, is accused of the slayings, which occurred after he was arrested in 2003 for suspicion of the crime of grand theft auto. According to the Associated Press, when he was caught, Thompson said, "Life is a video game. You've got to die sometime." While being booked at the station, he allegedly grabbed a police officer's pistol and then shot its owner and two other officers in the head--all three died. Thompson is then said to have driven off in a stolen police car, but was later apprehended. He is currently being charged with three counts of first-degree murder, and is set to go to trial on July 11.

Two of the victims' next-of-kin have filed a lawsuit accusing the two GTA games as having "trained and motivated" Thompson to commit his crimes. Besides Take-Two, the other defendants named in the near-60-page, $600 million suit are Wal-Mart and GameStop, where Thompson is said to have bought both M-rated games while under the ESRB-mandated 17-year-old purchase age. Sony Computer Entertainment America, makers of Thompson's PlayStation 2 console, is also named in the legal filing.

"I don't want another family to go through what our family has been through the past few years. It's about saving lives," said plaintiff Steve Strickland, a brother of one of the victims. The plaintiffs' attorney is none other than Jack Thompson, the Miami-based lawyer who has waged a one-man crusade "over the past twelve years in a national effort to hold accountable the entertainment industry for the harm it does to our children," according to his Web site, Stopkill.com.

After targeting gangsta rap's violent lyrics in the early 1990s, Thompson has spent the last half-decade railing against the perils of violent video games, which he refers to as "murder simulators." While speaking to the local NBC affiliate, Thompson said "[the game] industry has targeted, with the most popular and violent game in history, every police officer in America and put a bull's eye on their back." To back up his claims, Thompson cites studies at Harvard University and the University of Indiana that he asserts "prove that adolescents' brain functions are damaged by a steady diet of violent images."

For its part, Take-Two was conciliatory to the victims' relations, saying, "We would like to extend our deepest sympathies to the families of the officers killed." However, it gave no ground to the plaintiffs' attorney. "With regard to Mr. [Jack] Thompson, unfortunately he has a habit of doing this kind of thing often. No court has yet to take his legal claims seriously. The suggestion that there is a link between the use and sales of Grand Theft Auto and this tragic incident is utter nonsense. Anyone suggesting that such a link does exist is either misguided, misrepresenting the facts, or both."

I've got an idea. Why don't we sue Hollywood for inventing violent movies like Scarface and then sue the crap out of the government for inciting violence around the globe?

Hell, if this thing wins, it's got a pretty strong precedent.

[Sandrock]

It might be able to affect some people, sure. But you can't say the people who made the game are responsible for the actions of the players. To put this into perspective, imagine if someone sued MLB after some kid killed someone with a baseball bat. After all, baseball taught him how to swing the bat, right?

Nope you cant like the little kids thinking "Woot Im super man" is the faimly of the writer of super man gonna get sued or who owns him now? Ya know its not fair that way. ^_^

[shiney]

THis is no different from any case of people trying to shift the blame. It could be said that it gave him the idea, but there have been countless cases of people getting murder ideas from other sources.

It's not about that he killed the guys, they don't care. They just want to push their propaganda on everyone. Shift the blame. The kid used an obvious line to shift the focus off himself, I bet he knew what he was doing when he said that. There isno easier way to slide out of the limelight than to shift the focus to something volatile like the idiotic crusade against video games.

[Slime]

So wait, they're suing Sony now? By that logic, I should sue the government for creating the school system that gets so many people bullied. Why don't they also sue the company that provided the materials to make the PS2? Or whoever made the first computers, which inspired consoles? Oh, wait, they should sue God, because he made the earth which contained raw materials, and people, who's descendants made these games!

GTA is violent, but it's not Rockstar's fault that an underage teenager got hold of their game. Shouldn't the parents have been keeping an eye on what this kid was playing?

Edit: I have to go and see a lawyer about that time I got hit in the head with a ball. Yeah, I'm suing the company who made the ball, and then the company who laid the tarmac I landed on, the company who made the tarmac, the family of the inventor of tarmac (and the ball), and also the inventor of the maker of the material of the ball....you get the idea.

[Domon]

its just as others here have said all medias have been blamed for causing violence at one point or another. Now its videogames turn to be blamed for corrupting the youth, before that it was movies/tv, then before that it was probably comics and before that it at some point was books. violent media has evolved over the years and so has ignorant peoples hatred for it.

[Syka]

its just as others here have said all medias have been blamed for causing violence at one point or another. Now its videogames turn to be blamed for corrupting the youth, before that it was movies/tv, then before that it was probably comics and before that it at some point was books. violent media has evolved over the years and so has ignorant peoples hatred for it.


That is one of the smartest things I have ever heard. I'm just wondering what the next "cause" of violence will be; nevermind that some people are just sickos that souldn't be aloud to procreate. By the way, when calling people ignorant don't use improper grammar, "people" is plural already 'peoples" is used when describing a culture of people. Still a great post, I'm giving you a rep up

[Terex4]

What we should really be doing is suing the people who make these lawsuits for animal cruelty. If that poor horse hadn't died long ago, it'd be in a hell of a lot of pain.

Are there any major groups of people that actively fight this blame shifting? I'm not talking about the people being sued, they're obviously fighting it. I just want the comfort in knowing that at least some smart people have decided to rally.

[Number 81]

IMHO, violent games such as GTA can glorify violence and turn cops into someone to be hated or laughed at instead of someone to be respected. Even if it may not teach kids to kill, it may give them slightly lower moral standards. The change may not be dramatic, but for some people (stupid people and children) it may be even greater.

[Syka]

IMHO, violent games such as GTA can glorify violence and turn cops into someone to be hated or laughed at instead of someone to be respected. Even if it may not teach kids to kill, it may give them slightly lower moral standards. The change may not be dramatic, but for some people (stupid people and children) it may be even greater.


Finally a reasonable arguement against video games. Unfortuantly the games are labeled so this is bad parenting. I hate to blame the parents, but they are the only ones with the right to restrict what their child(ren) see. As for the stupid people this is where we have a grey area; is it right to ban material because of the minority, and is it right to keep certain people out of regular society because of how they are born? I honestly don't think games like GTA should be banned, but checking ID is just fine with me so some jackass 10 year old who knows everything can't play this type of game and then place all responsibility on it when they fuck up. By the way if someone is impressionable enough to think that a video game is real then they shouldn't read certain books (Stephen King, Tom Clancy for example) or watch certain shows and movies (24, any of the countless slasher flicks) because it is not just the video games doing it despite what it being said.

[Mirai Gen]

IMHO, violent games such as GTA can glorify violence and turn cops into someone to be hated or laughed at instead of someone to be respected. Even if it may not teach kids to kill, it may give them slightly lower moral standards. The change may not be dramatic, but for some people (stupid people and children) it may be even greater.

Yeah but 90% of the time the cops are shown as corrupt, fat, stupid, etc. for the sake of a laugh in GTA. High chances are if a guy named Officer Hoyle comes up to your window with a bald head, Super Trooper-glasses, and beefy arms and asks for your lisence and registration, you aren't going to shoot him and drive off because you 'don't repsect him'.

And I really don't think corruption in police force goes much further beyond the larger cities. Not much corruption in pothead county down here in california.

[Syka]

Mirai Gen I see what you mean. I have Vice City and it is filled with shameless satire. This is literally the only time I enjoy commercials because they are hilarious, especially VCPR.

[Number 81]

Yeah but 90% of the time the cops are shown as corrupt, fat, stupid, etc. for the sake of a laugh in GTA. High chances are if a guy named Officer Hoyle comes up to your window with a bald head, Super Trooper-glasses, and beefy arms and asks for your lisence and registration, you aren't going to shoot him and drive off because you 'don't repsect him'.

And I really don't think corruption in police force goes much further beyond the larger cities. Not much corruption in pothead county down here in california.

True, but violent games, TV, and videos can cause kids to think that violent acts are cool. And with huge amounts of peer presure from kids at school today's teens do not need any more reason to commit crimes. Drugs, sex, theft, violence, the more kids are introduced to these things their morality will diminish. Every day teens choose whether to do drugs and have intercorse or not. And their decision depends on their morality and influences. If their influences, whether it is around the house or at school, are bad, thy will be more likely to make wrong choices. And video games are a huge influence in a teen's life. Fear is a very powerful emotion, and if a teen sees this huge police officer that is trying to arrest him, the teen may become frightened and react violently.

[Krylo]

True, but violent games, TV, and videos can cause kids to think that violent acts are cool.And violent books can't? And with huge amounts of peer presure from kids at school today's teens do not need any more reason to commit crimes.So, wait, is it the games and TV or the peer pressure now? What's causing the crimes? Drugs, sex, theft, violence, the more kids are introduced to these things their morality will diminish.Firstly, I hate the word morality. There's nothing immoral, dirty, or wrong about sex. It's a natural part of humanity. It's something to be gone into with care, because it DOES carry consequences, but doing it without that care isn't 'immoral'. It's stupid. Like going parachuting without a parachute. You take a stupid risk and pay the price. The same goes for drugs. Unless people are actively thinking about how drugs and unprotected/promiscuous sex are going to hurt them and are doing it JUST to spite everyone else in their lives, it's not immoral. Merely stupid... and with drugs, maybe not even stupid. Just weak, exploratory, or experimentative. When something harms only you, directly, morality doesn't enter into it.

Secondly, kids have been introduced to drugs, sex, theft, and violence since the dawn of time. It's no worse now than it was one hundred years ago. Or even a few decades ago. Do you really think that GTA has even close to the same desensitizing effect toward violence as reading Lord of the Flies (in which a pig is raped by spears), Johnny Got his Gun, (in which a man has all his limbs blown off), or, for a better allegory, Johnathon Swift's "A Modest Proposal"? The last one fits particularily well, because, like GTA it's satire disguising itself as a serious attitude. Swift's was about eating babies, however. It even went so far as to suggest seasoning and cooking techniques.

How about news reports on Vietnam? Woodstock? The witch burnings? Pictures from Iraq of children with bullets in their heads. Saturday Night Fever. I could list things that children were subjected to LONG before videogames for hours and hours. This isn't a new thing. It hasn't killed society yet.

There are two options, here:

1) We ban all forms of violent or suggestive media. This, however, wouldn't really work. It would just force people to get their baser kicks elsewhere. It would cause porn and violent movies to move into the underground.

2) Responsible parenting. This doesn't mean keeping children away from these things, because they're going to be exposed eventually anyway. It means preparing them for exposure. It means teaching them the difference between reality and fiction. It means teaching them that their actions to other people in the real world have consequences. Not consequences like jail or groundings. Consequences like their victim's family losing a loved one.

Every day teens choose whether to do drugs and have intercorse or not. And their decision depends on their morality and influences. If their influences, whether it is around the house or at school, are bad, thy will be more likely to make wrong choices.Again, parenting.

And video games are a huge influence in a teen's life.And I suppose the parents have no influence. I suppose the teen doesn't have the ability to decide whether or not to do something for himself. I suppose movies, friends, and books have no influence. I suppose music doesn't either. I suppose people on the street don't. Or teachers. Or other students. Video games are a drop in the bucket. Not even a big one. Fear is a very powerful emotion, and if a teen sees this huge police officer that is trying to arrest him, the teen may become frightened and react violently.ANYONE may react violently to that. It doesn't have anything to do with video games. When you're scared the game of GTA you played last week doesn't run through your head telling you how to react. It's all pure human instinct. Adrenaline. Fight or flight. Your brain immediately gauges your chances of escape versus your chances of killing everyone, and it forces you in the right direction.

Video games, and other small social conditioners, can only affect premeditated decisions. In order to alter your natural fear and anger response you need heavy training. You need to teach your body how to react through repetitive motions. You need to hone your mind.

Video games don't do that.

[Viktor Von Russia]

Kudos to Krylo for pointing something out that so many people seem to miss when it comes to stuff like this. The parents play a large role in how their children turn out (man, I feel stupid just typing something that obvious). What with all the lawsuits against companies left and right, the focus on the parents themselves seems to be all but non-existent. If the parents took more of an interest in their kids, they should be able to at the very least moniter what their kids are watching on TV or what game they're playing. Hell, if the parents paid attention, the kids wouldn't even have a copy of GTA. Now, I'm not saying that the parents are completely to blame. The blame can't solely be placed on them any more than it can be on video games, media, or any other scapegoat. But I do think that they could be held accountable for the actions of their children if they use the TV and PS2 as electronic babysitters without paying any attention to what they're doing.

[Syka]

Krylo you are dead right about books as being just as violent. Actually in my experience they can be more grusome then other forms of media because they aren't as "cool" or "mainstream" anymore. In the novel Bag of Bones by Stephen King (my absolute favorite author) he describes in nearly painful detail the rape and murder of a black women complete with racist language, and other not so nice language as well. All of this is plain view of her child. This is much more graffic and violent (not to mention realistic) then GTA and I have never heard the media bitch about this novel. In fact I've heard more complaints about GTA then all other books combined.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

in fact i think steven king is respected among lots of intelects for his books.

does this mean that just because his median for his storys is a book instead of a video game he deserves more positive responses?

[shiney]

Steven King...King Steve. One commits horrible atrocities, one merely writes about them. The similarities are astounding. Or something.

But yeah. This whole GTA thing is just part of america's current fad of not taking responsibility. As mentioned earlier.

[Syka]

grthwllms I never said that he deserves more respect then the writers for video games. In fact they deserve the same amount of resect according to me. It's just that (I hate to use this term, but almost have no choice) normal people don't read as much so books are thought to be only for the "smart people". By the way great comparison shiney, I am in a good mood so you're getting a rep up for it.

[Betrademos]

From a technical standpoint, The blame can be divided three ways: The parent, 25%, The developer, 25%, and the child, 50%. THE PARENT: Your kid is FIVE YEARS OLD. do NOT buy them GTA, do NOT buy them Manhunt, do NOT buy them any game with a big fat M on it. 'nuff said. THE DEVELOPER: I franky hate anybody in the entertainment industry that is not either a follower or a visionary. Rockstar is a deviant. They make mostly games that are pro-violence with a shaggy plot thrown in to hold things together. Just for example, MGS's Solid Snake isn't idealistic, but he's one of the good guys, and probably saving all of our butts as we speek. Any GTA hero is bound to be wolf in sheeps clothing: a criminal, former criminal, ect. THE CHILD: You have to be plain stupid not to be able to seperate reality from fantasy. GTA is unrealistic in that you can, forexample, kill ten people, maybe more, with little resistance. Reality check? You'd be surrounded by the cops in a heartbeat.

[Syka]

I like that idea: everybody's wrong. Still it is definetly more to the fault of the child for trying out what is in a game. They should put up a sign that in big bold letters says: THESE GAMES ARE NOT REAL! Even though nobody would pay any attention to it.

[Number 81]

Krylo, you're correct, both books and parents have an effect on the way a kid thinks. What I am saying is that when kids are introduced to violence, it will have an effect on them as teens. Just to clarify some things:
1) Peer Pressure
What I meant was that teens do not need both violent influences and influence from friends. Since we can't eliminate the friends, we have to lower the violence.
2) Sex and morality
I won't go into my personal beliefs about sex here, but if teens don't care about sex and see it as a good feeling, they will have sex with anyone they see. The result: Sexually transmitted diseases have reached epidemic levels. And a lot of this is the fault of schools and parents for not teaching their teens.

Video games are influences on a teen’s life. The main problem is that parents do not care or they don't know what their kids play.

Just as TV has gone from "Howdy Doody" to "Sex in the City", video games have gone from "Pac-man" to "Playboy Mansion". TV isn't getting any better, so unless something is done, what makes you think that Video games won't get any worse. I don't know about you but I do not think that teens need a sex simulator video game.

P.S.: While your point about books is a good one, how many teens do you know that would choose a book over a video game?

[Noobity]

So, here's where I stand (since i'm getting into the convo like, 2 weeks late). If a video game is enough to push a kid off the edge, then they'll probably have done something ridiculous and horrible at some point anyway. And even if it were video games that pushed this kid too far, chances are they aren't smart enough to associate the action with the influence. These kids that say "Eminem said I could do it" or "GTA showed me how to kill cops" are carefully manipulating their situations to keep themselves out of the electric chair, and, like me, probably learned that VIOLENCE IS BAD when they started watching fuggin Sesame Street when they were 3.

Parent's are a great place to place some blame, for who else is in constant contact with these problem children who want nothing more than to be hugged? Wait, wtf am I talking about, these kids are terrors any way you look at it. The average suburbian kid is not going to go on any sort of rampage unless they're deranged already. I'm sounding like a broken record here but it's not in humanity's nature to willingly go around killing people because they want to. Yes, we do it, but I refuse to believe that it's not due to severe mental defects.

As for books, I think they're probably the worst of the bunch, when it comes to teaching people how to kill and commit other horrible acts. Anyone with the intelligence to read and understand a Tom Clancy book (fugg if I could, he's too wordy for me. and BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORING.) can probably look into just how these terrorists (all the books from him I've tried to read have been terrorrist-ridden) did just what they did, and will more than likely be smart enough to try and pull it off. I'm not saying they're not deranged, but they're really the core of average American (at least) intellect.

Movies... No. Just no. Nobody goes out of a Schwarzenegger flick thinking "well, gee-golly, I'm going to get me a bowie knife and a machine gun and start blasting the hell out of people, durhurr". Slasher flicks? No, again. "Hey, I'm just like this unkillable guy in a hockey mask, watch me kill people with a big knife, but first I gots ta scares thems!".

It's really kinda genius of these lawyers and such, to shift the blame to media. If you'll notice, most of these suits never get to court, they're always bargained out of. The media knows that they can't afford such bad publicity (yes, I'm suspending my belief of the "any publicity is good publicity" belief) if they want people giving them their precious monies.


EDIT: since 81 posted while I was ranting and I wanna address some shizzle, mah nizzles.

1) I don't live in Harlem, so I may be out of the whole "friend" scene, but I seriously doubt that anyone is trying to get their friends to do things like KILL POLICE OFFICERS
2) Ok, I got it this time, but since I hate those quote boxes I'm just gonna use good ol' quotation marks.
"I won't go into my personal beliefs about sex here, but if teens don't care about sex and see it as a good feeling, they will have sex with anyone they see. The result: Sexually transmitted diseases have reached epidemic levels. And a lot of this is the fault of schools and parents for not teaching their teens."

First of all, STDs aren't epidemic by no means. Obesity is an epidemic, STDs are an annoyance. As for teens not caring about sex, seeing it as a good feeling, and having sex with anyone they see, where's the problem with that? Sex is just that, a really good feeling, sometimes the best feeling that can be associated with this shit-hole existence we carve daily, so why not do it as much as possible (as I said pre-emptively below, yay)? I'm not saying rape anyone (though I'm not sure that's even been touched yet in video games, I could be horribly mistaken, though) but if you have the oppertunity and you're both consenting and of legal age, go ahead. No skin off my back if you decide you want to be stupid and get herpes, I'm not gonna be fuggin ya. Or anyone for that matter in any sort of stupid way.

As for what was said after the points, yes, television, movies, video games, all getting worse and worse and worse, but nobody was up in arms with Mario jumping on Goombahs (an Italian... wtf is that word. Like "Spic" or "W.O.P." or "Nigger"). And what about people being up in arms about Elvis shaking his hips. Sure, we've gotten more and more desensitized (I think that's a little bit better a word to use, I feel, than some of these others people have been using), to things like death and fantastic adventures and such, but I for one wasn't able to go near my great grandmother's corpse at her funeral, it is not in anyone's nature to take life or be near a taken life.

Also, sex is great, fun, exciting, yadda yadda yadda. You get one life, screw as many people as you can (obviously while obeying basic rules of decency) and enjoy yourself. But explain to me how many people you know who play GTA get laid in any sort of consistant fashion. Believe it or not, most people who are up in arms about this stuff (hey, look at me, I'm up in arms, people) are nerds. We're not the most desirable specimens of the species, I doubt GTA is going to give any sort of rise to sexual crimes or more babies or anything.

[MFD]

The bottom line is, kids should not be playing these games. They are rated Mature. A responsible parent (like mine) would understand their kids' maturiy level enough to determine whether or not having such a game would lead to trouble.

Up until they were sure I wouldn't copy stupid shit in the games, my parents knew what games I owned, or at least had looked at them to make sure they weren't like, oh, GTA 3.

Hell, when I was younger, my dad PLAYED the games with us. Video gaming, and reading, and watching movies, needs to be done with parental supervision of some sort.

Don't blame the game. Blame the parents. Or, if you'd rather, the kid.

[Kuja]

If they're complaining that video games such as GTA are corrupting the youth, why don't they just take the stupid response and release games that glorify police officers and what not?

I don't mean like True Crime. Like some kind of police sim. Make the bad guys look...well, bad.

[Betrademos]

I've had an idea sorta like that in my head for a long time. You play as police officers and you try to gain conrol of real-life situations.

[Syka]

P.S.: While your point about books is a good one, how many teens do you know that would choose a book over a video game?

I just have to comment on this one bacause I am on of those teens who would choose a book over a video game, but it is true I am a minority in this aspect.

Now to more recent posts; they don't create police games because they wouldn't sell. People like to play as the bad guy because they are expected to be the good guy in real life. Also cops have much more rules then what the thugs have to follow (since this is about GTA then it is none).

[Viktor Von Russia]

Now to more recent posts; they don't create police games because they wouldn't sell.

Well, there's that motion-sensitive police shooter game in the arcades (the name escapes me at the moment). I've also seen a S.W.A.T. game. I'm sure that there are a good number of police games out there. They just aren't as popular and well-known (or as fun, perhaps) as games like GTA.

[Mirai Gen]

no games glorify cops? Virtua Cop #? I don't see why people say "There aren't any" when a good portion of the time they're very much used. Hell, just look at City of Heroes. Who do you run to when you need help? SWAT and police.

I think more specifically, there aren't any games (with the exception of a few) that take place in 20th century realistic situations that involve cops, probably including Virtua Cop. Any time I can think of 20th century (Except for GTA, MGS, etc) there's always a supernatural or superpowerful entity or problem showing itself and forcing Chosen One(s) to do something instead of local authorities.

Some cop shootdodging and kung-fu ing just doesn't seem to make as much sense as a guy named Jack Slate with a darker past doing his job to avenge someone.

[Seraphna]

Heya! Thoght my second post should be constructive. I also hang out over in the CAD forums, and after a rather frustrating list of e-mail conversations with Satan... I mean Jack Thompson, we descided to organise into a fashionable group. We call ourselves the GAAC, or the Gamers Alliance Against Censorship. We're located at http://www.gamersalliance.org and I'm very big about the subject.

Personally, I thought the 60 minutes interview was hilarious.... Crainial Menu? That sounds like something that hurts. As for games that glorify cops? Max Paine is a cop... Virtua Cop's been mentioned a lot, Time Crisis even feautes to crime fighting hotshots. City of Heroes was a great point, I mean, come on! We don't always play thecriminal in video games, in fact those games are few and far between as it is!

[bard master]

video game violence in children?

I notice that children are affected by their enviroment from a young age. We can't blame it ALL on video games, give the parents and public schooling SOME credit.

If a kid gets a violent video game, then its partially the stores fault for selling it to them. Its partially the company's fault for making it, its partly the parent's fault for letting them get it.

Every child is born innocent, so they say.

[Krylo]

It's not the company's fault at all, unless they're specifically making these violent games for children. They aren't. They're making these violent games for adults who want to play violent games.

They're making them for adults. They're marketting them to adults. They put big 'M's on the labels for mature. Some games even have disclaimers when you turn them on mentioning that they're violent.

What more do you want them to do? Make people put in their birthdate everytime they turn a game on?

It isn't really the store's fault either. If an adult comes up to me with a GTA game and I'm working the counter, I'm not going to say, "Are you buying this for a minor/child? Do you realize it contains gore, drugs, prostitutes, and gang violence?" Just like they don't ask you if you're buying booze for a minor.

If they sell an M rated game to a minor, then yes, it's their fault. However, most of the time the only minors they're selling to directly are 16 and up, and at that age violence in media no longer has a discernible effect*. I don't see a lot of five year olds going to Wal-Mart and buying San Andreas.

So what it comes down to is this: The parent buys the kid the game, gives the kid the game, and lets the kid play the game without ever thinking about how it says how it's violent, graphic, and contains strong sexual content all over the packaging.

It's fully the parent's fault that the child got that game.

And, once they're at the age this stuff is happening at, it's fully the kid's fault for not being able to discern fiction from reality.

*There were studies done in which psychologists would take two, random, groups of children and put them in identical rooms with identical toys. In one they'd play Rambo and in the other Care Bears, or something equally inane. In the room with Rambo, the children would play with the fake swords 'battling each other', beat up the punch 'em clown, etc. In the one with Care Bears, the children would play with blocks and balls non-violently. However, this effect diminishes in a few hours, and doesn't exist in older viewers.

[Syka]

krylo I've heard of that study, or a similar one. In the one I heard they had some children watch a more violent show (i.e. Ninja Turtles, Power Rangers) and the other group watch something gentler (i.e. Barney) and had them interact with each other afterwards and noticed those with more violent shows acted more aggresively, but like kyrlo said the effect wore off fairly quickly.

[CrazyBen]

Well, I have mixed view on this one. I, personnally, have been playing violent games (like Doom) since I was ten, and am a physical coward in real life. My little brother, on the other hand, has been play GTA just as long and is a future gun-violence statistic. We both have the same gaming experince-age, but I try to avoid arguments whenever possible, where as the only things stopping him from going on a real-world killing spree is A)He's too young to buy guns and B)He's a major homophobe, and doesn't wnat to end up in pound-me-in-the-arse prison. Of course, my other younger brother is pretty unstable, so I think the evidence does kind of point towards games having an effect. I am the smartest of us too, so you should consider that.

[h4x.m4g3]

You have to remember CrazyBen, they're younger than you. The younger people are the more easily influenced they are. We all know that video games have an effect on younger kids (I'm not sure how old your brothers and you are) say age 5-13 or so. After that developmental period video games have a much much lesser effect on people. So even if you and your brother have been playing video games for the same time length, he's younger therefore they have influenced them more.

This is why games have ratings that say what age groups should play them. Because unless you are completely unstable to begin with once your 17, video games barely influence your thinking and therefore you can handle playing games like GTA without becoming a homocidal maniac.

On a side note, is anyone else getting tired of hearing experts complain that their is no game rating equivilent to PG-13? Makes me just want to find them and scream E=G, there is no PG equivilent, T(13+)=PG-13(obviously 13+) M=R/NC 17 in their faces.

[Toastburner B]

On a side note, is anyone else getting tired of hearing experts complain that their is no game rating equivilent to PG-13? Makes me just want to find them and scream E=G, there is no PG equivilent, T(13+)=PG-13(obviously 13+) M=R/NC 17 in their faces.

Actually, the ERSB came out with a new rating recently. The "E10+" rating.

You can read about it here. (http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/fun.games/03/09/video.games.new.rating.ap/index.html)

[Syka]

What type of games would that be? Oh and how CrazyBen said he's the smart one we already decided that those of lesser intelligence are more influence by different forms of media.

[bard master]

lemme give u my scenario on this thing:

lil' jonny anykid is a nice kid. His family is kind, he has a nice house, and he goes to a nice junior school. He has an older brother who is kinda naughty ( so he thinks, but he doesnt know half of what his brother does) and hes got good grades.

He goes to school one day, and realises its nearly his last day of junior school. He works hard, and then misses the bus home, so he walks.

On his way walking, he meets his older brother outside a game store. The brother is worried that his brother has seen him, and promises to buy him a game, any game he wants.

He asks for GTA, cos the game magazines say its the greatest. He's seen pictures, and it looks fun.

His parents are away most the time, working late in the big city. So his parents don't find out hes got the game. So he gets away with it for a while, and is enjoying the game.

1 Year later...

its lil Jonnys first year at secondary school, and hes a bit unhappy about it. He's being bullied by Billy nastykid.

Billy comes from the wrong side of the tracks, and enjoys beating up kids. Nobody helps him, and nobody EVER tells teachers, kids rules.

His brother got him the next GTA, and it comes with much more interesting stuff. You can hurt people using your bare fist's new techniques, and use choking moves and other things.

His brother also enjoys fighting. Its playfighting when he does it with jonny, but jonny is getting good at the choking.

He is now getting extremely depressed, and teenagers often react to depression baddly. He starts feeling agressive tendencies, and decides to confront billy.

They fight, and jonny tries to choke billy. Billy punches him square, and poor litle jonny is hurt and crying. The kids laugh, and he goes home.

Then he notices something else in the game: Guns. What if he could just take his problems away with the pull of a trigger? What if...

The line of reality begins to blur, and his brother buys him a gun, making jonny promise that hed never hurt anyone with it.

Then, one cold morning, he goes into school, with that thing loaded. He pulls it out in the playground, and makes Billy die. With the last bullet left, he points it to his head and tastes cold lead.

The parents came back that evening to find a policeman telling them their son is dead. The tells them he didn't think he'd do it, and that jonny promised he wouldnt hurt anyone, thereby delegating the blame.

The father gets angry with the son, and hurts him. The son runs away, and the father goes to prison, since jonny was under 14 and his responsibility.

The mother blames it on the game companies for selling these things. The game company wins the court case, and the mother becomes an alchoholic and a drug addict.

Now, whos the reason for this? The older brother? The game designers? The game store? Billy? His Parents?

And whos the victim? Nobody wins from this. The game gets bad publicity, the family falls appart. We cant blame GTA all for this.

[Syka]

Simple word of advice to everyone: The bullet is never the answer

[Viktor Von Russia]

Holy depressing stories, Batman! That is perhaps the most morbid thing I've ever seen on these forums. While I can't say that your scenario is completely unrealistic, I seriously doubt that Johhny Anykid really is the everykid (as it were). What is more unbelievable to me, though, is his brother. Who the hell buys his little brother a gun? Especially when he promises "not to hurt anybody." Anyone can see through that. Again, though, in this scenario, I think the parents could have prevented this. How do the parents miss a game like GTA if they're paying attention to their kids?

[shiney]

That is such a ridiculous scenario that it's a wonder it's even being presented. Just friggin astounding. How about realistic argument with actual viewpoints instead of some hollywood fantasy?

[Syka]

Hey I know! instead of having the older brother buy jonny anykid a gun have him steal his parents, this is assuming he lives in redneckville like I do(WARNING OFF TOPIC: Is there an actual Redneckville? I'll search for it-didn't find anything except jokes). Back to the point: also the kid has to be very demented to consider using a gun. In case I didn't illustrate clear enough a couple of posts up:
THE GUN IS NEVER THE ANSWER
Thank you


WARNING OFF TOPIC:
P.S. the gun may be the answer only if it is life-or-death, you're a cop, or a soldier in a combat situation. I have no problem with self-defense; or blowing the shit out of terrorists.

[bard master]

yawn, its just something i thought of. My scenarios work, they just miss some vital points . I mean, i was trusted with a swiss knife at 11, and a b&b gun at 13. So whos fault is it? I dunno. But the Bullet isnt the answer.

[Viktor Von Russia]

I mean, i was trusted with a swiss knife at 11, and a b&b gun at 13.

But I'm sure your parents gave'em to you, right? And gave you a speech on how to use them properly? That's a far cry from your older brother giving it to you haphazardly. And by "b&b gun," do you mean a BB gun, or is there a real gun that goes by that name that I'm not aware of?

[shiney]

A bed & breakfast gun, apparently.

No, your scenarios don't really work to be honest. It is bizarre and random and puts way too much into unrealistic possibility. And GTA doesn't even teach you that 'a gun can make a problem go away'. In fact, if you use guns you get in more trouble in the game. So, again that's a bit off.

This topic has reached post limit as it is. And I think we're almost unanimous in opinion, so it doesn't really merit a second thread. Closed.