Grand Theft Auto.

[prejudged_Fire]

GTA:SA received the one and only special dispensation because it was retroactively given an AO rating. There are no AO offerings because the consoles will not license AO games for use on their systems. See the article below for more information: Sony, Nintendo forbid AO-rated Manhunt 2 - PlayStation 2 News at GameSpot As I said before, this is because the public has the incorrect perception that "games are for kids." In reality, what they are doing is akin to banning adult DVDs from being played on DVD players because those same DVD players also play Disney movies. It is not logical and it lops off a massive potential audience of middle-aged gamers with consoles.

Ohh thanks for the link. I stand corrected, and I agree with you (only its not surprising that Nintendo would do that).

It was not inaccurate. Nor was it insulting.

I never said it was. I just thought it was unnecessary, and you seem to agree.

Also, p_F, what was the most violent game of 1999, when you were 7 years old?

GTA:London, 1969? Released for Windows and PlayStation in 1999. I can't say it was the most violent game at that time because I never played it. So to give you a direct answer, I dont know, I was never able to play any of those games, I just saw the covers of them in Walmart. Whats your point?

Nothing matched the GTA series for the ability to offer random and indiscriminate violence, sex, and mature themes.

Thats right. The ability to. It offered freedom. The ability to choose your own actions. It was different. People like games that are different, and thats what GTA was.

Now I'm off to download San Andreas for PC.

[ZNFYRH]

You missed the point completely. Never mind.

[prejudged_Fire]

I suppose I did.

[Praxius]

Quote by: ZNFYRH prejudged_Fire It may have been unnecessary, but it was not inaccurate. Nor was it insulting.

Well I did, but I didn't find it nessicary to complain about it.

And it was indeed inaccurate, since neither of you have the first clue about my life, who I hung out with, where, when and anything else for that matter.... to tell me I know nothing about it, because I'm white.... is one of the most ignorant things I have seen recently... in fact, I'm even surprised that I haven't bothered to report such a racist remark.

Remember I live in Canada... kinda a place that isn't majoritly racist and tolerates judgements such as that, thank you.... at least where I live, and at least myself alone, which is enough.

So don't tell me it wasn;t inacurate or insulting..... you aparently know nothing about it.

I'm not insulting a person's intelligence by pointing out that they lack the experiences of being a child from a certain background.

No, you're insulting my intelligence by assuming such an ignorant thing.

If you don't think I couldn't relate to much of what was in the game, let alone the time frame it was in, then you don't have a clue, sorry to say.

Also, p_F, what was the most violent game of 1999, when you were 7 years old? And not stylized violence, like in Resident Evil, against fictional opponents. But games where you could hurt random, average people indiscriminately.

You can do that in Resident Evil 4.

And violence is violence.... you're gonna pick and choose what kind of violence you're gonna show your kid?

Thus far, nobody has proven the game GTA:SA promoted the player to kill and inocent person?

For Playstation One, I started here: Top PlayStation Games - Best PlayStation Video Games - Best PlayStation Games - Top PlayStation Video Games And just kept scrolling through. Nothing indiscriminate I did the same for PC and other game consoles. Nothing matched the GTA series for the ability to offer random and indiscriminate violence, sex, and mature themes..

What's you're point? That's what made GTA orignal..... darn... didn't know that was a crime. Oh, and there are other pages to that list....

The ability to offer is in the decisions of the player.... if you promote that lifestyle in real life, they may find enjoyment in doing it in the game, who will ever know for sure? If you want to teach the kid right, tell them not to hurt the innocent uless they think it would be alright for them to do it to him..... and in GTA:SA, some will.... they will fight back and they have guns and knives....

Too many gamers take for granted their growing up as the gaming industry grew.

Guess what the average gamer's age is today?

ESA

TOP 10 INDUSTRY FACTS 1. US computer and video game software sales grew six percent in 2006 to $7.4 billion – almost tripling industry software sales since 1996. 2. Sixty-seven percent of American heads of households play computer and video games. 3. The average game player is 33 years old and has been playing games for 12 years. 4. The average age of the most frequent game buyer is 38 years old. In 2007, 92 percent of computer game buyers and 80 percent of console game buyers were over the age of 18. 5. Eighty-five percent of all games sold in 2006 were rated "E" for Everyone, "T" for Teen, or "E10+" for Everyone 10+. For more information on ratings, please see Entertainment Software Rating Board. 6. Eighty-six percent of game players under the age of 18 report that they get their parents’ permission when renting or buying games, and 91 percent say their parents are present when they buy games. 7. Thirty-six percent of American parents say they play computer and video games. Further, 80 percent of gamer parents say they play video games with their kids. Sixty-six percent feel that playing games has brought their families closer together. 8. Thirty-eight percent of all game players are women. In fact, women over the age of 18 represent a significantly greater portion of the game-playing population (31%) than boys age 17 or younger (20%). 9. In 2007, 24 percent of Americans over the age of 50 played video games, an increase from nine percent in 1999. 10. Forty-nine percent of game players say they play games online one or more hours per week. In addition, 34 percent of heads of households play games on a wireless device, such as a cell phone or PDA, up from 20 percent in 2002.

Oh look at that.... Brought families closer together, the majority of children ask their parents permission to buy or play a game and most of the time the parents play the game too, or are there watching them play the game.

Apparently there is some sort of parental judgement in the works it would seem.... and aparently by the above arguments, a parent wouldn't know that their kid is playing a game such as GTA and what they are learning, and/or playing it with them, possibly...... just slightly possibly, they are teaching them right and wrong in a simulated enviroment.....

Look out the nearest window.....

Real World.....

Look at the monitor for a second.......

Fake World.....

If you spill coffee on my post, I'm not gonna burn.... you're just gonna toast your monitor.....

Now that's pretty simple for a 7 year old to understand, why would they go loco and try and steal an FBI crusier and go on a speeding rampage around town?

I'm sure they'd get as far as the telephone pole. :rolleyes:

[prejudged_Fire]

so.. what was your point ZN? Sarcasm and insults aside. Lets try to finish this discussion without pissing each other off. What were you getting at in post 40?

[ZNFYRH]

The point was that, for one, the GTA series was the first to allow relative freedom for violence. Not blood and guts... but actual violent behavior and mature themes like prostitution, drug use, and other criminal activity. GTA 3 was released in 2001. The earlier GTA games are not considered because the top down view separates you from many aspects of the violence.

The majority of people saying, "Games didn't mess me up," were teenagers when GTA 3 was released. It's not accurate to use oneself as an example to prove a point when oneself does not accurately represent the subject of the topic.

The second point was that there is a definite difference between economic and racial backgrounds when considering the effects of these games. The more the protagonist "hits home" the more likely kids of grade school age will emulate that behavior.

Also, please note that I didn't direct any sarcasm or insults towards you. Nor did I direct any towards Praxius. I appreciate your desire to continue a discussion without the thick sarcasm, and I will maintain the same respect as long as you do.

[ruksak]

Quote by: padrisimo I grew up playing violent video games and action movies, i am mentally sound.

The concern is for those children still in their developmental stage whom may be prone to, or suffering from, a yet undisclosed mental illness.

I too was overexposed to a large selection of violent media as a child. From the 'Ghetto Boyz' to 'Doom'; the band 'Slayer' and the movie 'Nightmare On Elm Street'. I never took out my school bully with a sawed off shotgun. I never raped a freshly dug up corpse. I didn't slice my ex-girlfriend up for looking at me the wrong way. However, I wasn't mentally unstable as a child.
Children with certain mental illnesses have pieces missing in their logic processing capabilities. These sorts of media may fill in the blanks, so to speak, and create a harmful situation that may manifest itself in a way that is quite undesirable.
These games such as GTA, shouldn't be banned from production. They are for adults, and if adults aren't intelligent enough to remove them from their child's life, they are dangerously misguided.
Too often people don't recognize if thier child has a mental instability. Until they do something to indicate it. Often it is too late and someone is going to get hurt.

[prejudged_Fire]

Quote by: ZNFYRH The point was that, for one, the GTA series was the first to allow relative freedom for violence. Not blood and guts... but actual violent behavior and mature themes like prostitution, drug use, and other criminal activity. GTA 3 was released in 2001. The earlier GTA games are not considered because the top down view separates you from many aspects of the violence.

How is blood and guts not "actual" violent behavior? Blowing a person's head off with a shotgun is violent behavior, whether the rest of the game has other mature themes or not. And there were many games (first person and third) like this that came out before GTA 3 (and even before the original as well for that matter).

The majority of people saying, "Games didn't mess me up," were teenagers when GTA 3 was released. It's not accurate to use oneself as an example to prove a point when oneself does not accurately represent the subject of the topic. The second point was that there is a definite difference between economic and racial backgrounds when considering the effects of these games. The more the protagonist "hits home" the more likely kids of grade school age will emulate that behavior.

In 2001, my friends at school weren't teenagers, they were 9 (and many were black), and they played GTA 3 all the time. I still know them quite well today, and they haven't beaten up any prostitutes yet.

Also, please note that I didn't direct any sarcasm or insults towards you. Nor did I direct any towards Praxius. I appreciate your desire to continue a discussion without the thick sarcasm, and I will maintain the same respect as long as you do.

Agreed.

Ruksak, you make an interesting point. But even if the mentally disturbed children never played the game, they'd still see its content on TV, the news, school, magazines, etc. It'd be impossible to shelter them from it entirely.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: pFire How is blood and guts not "actual" violent behavior?

This is really hard to explain.

When I say "violence" I'm referring to the meaning of the word that is related to aggression and ferocity. The intent behind the action.

As a quick example, the gore in Hostel is not violent. It's the same as the Resident Evil games, or Doom. It's blood and guts for the sake of gore.

Then there's the scene in Pan's Labyrinth with the bottle. That is one of the most violent things I have ever seen in my life. There is a significant difference.

The GTA games are not gory, but they have a greater propensity for violence and, in some cases, encourage it. They are removed from the stylized zombies, supernatural enemies, foreign soldiers, or arcade-style appearance as previous games.

Quote by: pFire In 2001, my friends at school weren't teenagers, they were 9 (and many were black), and they played GTA 3 all the time. I still know them quite well today, and they haven't beaten up any prostitutes yet.

The point wasn't that they will do those things.

The point is that the ability to do those things was available for a child who does not understand prostitution, drugs, etc.

With games with specific targets, some of which I named above, your actions are focused and directed at those enemies. GTA allows a much more casual violence to be directed indiscriminately. And by that I mean that you can be violent towards people other than your enemies.

Two 9 year olds can say, "Pick up a hooker while you're driving a nice car and park in an alley. She'll have sex with you and recover your health and charge you money. When she gets out of the car, kill her and you can get your money back. You were just recovered for free!!"

But does the other 9 year old stop and say, "Yeah, but wouldn't it be wrong to do that?"

They don't have the understanding of the ethical nature of such an act.

I don't doubt that they understand it's just a game and they wouldn't do it in real life. The problem is their exposure to the rewards of such casual violence.

[prejudged_Fire]

Then there's the scene in Pan's Labyrinth with the bottle. That is one of the most violent things I have ever seen in my life. There is a significant difference.

I dont know what scene you're talking about. What happened?

Two 9 year olds can say, "Pick up a hooker while you're driving a nice car and park in an alley. She'll have sex with you and recover your health and charge you money. When she gets out of the car, kill her and you can get your money back. You were just recovered for free!!" But does the other 9 year old stop and say, "Yeah, but wouldn't it be wrong to do that?"

If they were playing a video game, no. If they were told to do that in real life, they probably would say that. If not, then thats the fault of the parents for not teaching them that in real life, its wrong to do those things.

I don't doubt that they understand it's just a game and they wouldn't do it in real life. The problem is their exposure to the rewards of such casual violence.

Why is it a problem if its kept within the game and not done in the real world? If its done virtually, and the child has been taught from the parents that its wrong in real life, I dont see how it could be hurting anyone.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: pFire I dont know what scene you're talking about. What happened?

A man grabs a younger man by the collar of his shirt and crushes his face in with a thick glass bottle. Picture someone holding the bottom of the bottle and stabbing someone in the center of their face with the head of the bottle.

The act in itself was brutal and violent and represented the kind of ferocious aggression I'm talking about.

Quote by: pFire Why is it a problem if its kept within the game and not done in the real world? If its done virtually, and the child has been taught from the parents that its wrong in real life, I dont see how it could be hurting anyone.

Because it's one thing to tell your kids it's wrong, but it's another to understand why it's wrong.

Consider when Praxius explained the underlying themes of GTA:SA. We all know those things but we are older. Kids lack the breadth of experience and knowledge to see it that way.

It's the difference between being told murder is wrong, and seeing murder as wrong through a moral and ethical perspective.

[Muckraker]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Then there's the scene in Pan's Labyrinth with the bottle. That is one of the most violent things I have ever seen in my life. There is a significant difference.

I'll second that. That scene was one of those where your stomach drops out.

I watched a film called Cannibal Holocaust and, when I realized the animal slaughter and torture wasn't a special effect I had a sick feeling for almost a month after. Seeing true violence tells most people that they aren't desensitized to violence at all.

I'm not worried as much about people who play games like GTA3 as I am about people who download videos of actual death and torture for entertainment. I worked with a guy like that and it just creeped me out.

To support what some of the other posts have said. GTA3 definitely isn't the first, or even the most violent. GTA1 and Carmageddon were a couple of fond late teen memories I have in my video gaming life. And then there was the arcade, which was a whole other beast in and of itself.

The problem with kids playing adult games is just that; kids are playing adult games. It's not the games fault or the game maker's fault. GTA3 proved that the adult gaming audience is immense and I hope the beauty of capitalism can break down those idiotic AO bans. But in a country where I can't even play online poker legally I'm not seeing that happening anytime soon...

[ZNFYRH]

That's part of it too...

When the game companies admit that the game they've made isn't meant for children. When they go so far as to say that they won't let their own children play the game.

[Praxius]

I'd also like to take this time to point out that throughout the entire game, when someone offers CJ drugs, he always turned them down.... except the time when he had to burn Truth's crop of weed..... but him getting high while burning it all down wasn't directly his fault and he wasn't impressed either.

I suppose someone could at least chalk that to the good side of morals, wouldn't you think?

[prejudged_Fire]

A man grabs a younger man by the collar of his shirt and crushes his face in with a thick glass bottle. Picture someone holding the bottom of the bottle and stabbing someone in the center of their face with the head of the bottle. The act in itself was brutal and violent and represented the kind of ferocious aggression I'm talking about.

Oh... Ok I see what you mean there...

GTA3 definitely isn't the first, or even the most violent. GTA1 and Carmageddon were a couple of fond late teen memories I have in my video gaming life.

I forgot about Carmageddon. I knew there had to be a game that came out before GTA3 (not counting the earlier GTAs because of the top down view) that involved criminal violence, but I couldn't think of one.

The problem with kids playing adult games is just that; kids are playing adult games.

But why is that a problem? "It just is" isn't an answer. There must be some negative effects from it in order to be a problem, and so far no one has mentioned any (other than what Ruksak said about the disturbed, which I addressed). If you can give me some reasonable negative effects that can come from a young child playing GTA then I'll probably agree with you. But right now I can't think of any.

[megadeth425]

I only read the first page, so I may be turning out some already-raised posts. But I only realised when I was finishing up the post so I have no desire to go back and correct it.
-----------------------------------
GTA for children isn't suitable, no question about it. But that's why it's rated T. People complain it's not suitable for children, and I agree wholeheartedly. But here you have people trying to ban the game simply because it's not kid friendly. So, as someone legally allowed to purchase a game, I shouldn't be allowed because it's unsuitable for people whose parents, despite the warnings, decided to buy their children games? It falls on the parents to make sure they aren't buying their seven year-old children games like that, and certainly not on the people who made that game. Ratings boards exist for an obvious reasons. Kids have difficulty discerning the various things presented from reality, gain a false perception of how things are on the whole, and get de-sensitized to them.

On to the matter of violence, I don't see it. Sure, the game is graphic, violent, and allows you to go on killing sprees, but how does this effect the overall population? You hear about people who shoot up schools and own these games, and then people blame the games. But people who shoot up schools are already imbalanced and have problems that if anything the games only amplify. The small part of the population whose mental state is affected by violent games are those usually who have problems discerning reality from fantasy, violent tendencies, and the like. I've played GTA from the original to San Andreas. I've played the most violent of games, the goriest...and yet they have no affect on my daily life or mental state. When I play Grand Theft Auto, I play the game, I don't live it. I don't walk outside moments later and have an urge to kill tons of people or steal a car. I leave what happens in the game behind when I turn off the PS2 and go live life.

There's killing sprees and prostitutes and you have to steal cars and blow shit up...if people emulate this, it could be because they're emotionally or psychologically unbalanced, or young kids who think it makes them cool and emulate it as a game of sorts. In both cases, the problem lies not with the developpers. If the parents decide to buy the child a game that's clearly marked as unsuitable for children, let them deal with the consequences. In no context is letting a small child play a game like this suitable.

[ZNFYRH]

megadeth

The OP asks:

What are your opinions? Do you think that if a child grows up playing violent games such as GTA, they will grow up as a killer, or to pick up prostitutes?

I don't think a kid who plays will be a killer or pick up prostitutes.

But I still don't think it's appropriate for children until they are old enough to understand the morality and ethics beyond the actions they take, or crimes they commit, in the game.

"They are the bad guy" is enough reason in 90% of games played.

But in GTA, you are rewarded for killing people (money off their dead bodies). In Carmaggeddon, the violence and interface are arcade-stylized, and that serves to dissociate one from the violence. Not to mention the fact that it's not realistic nor does it have realistic themes.

[prejudged_Fire]

So the fact that it simulates real life makes it bad?

[megadeth425]

I've already stated I don't, I just went into detail on some other related subjects.

Children will have more trouble discerning what they're doing from reality, and they haven't fully developped psychologically. It will de-sensitize them to the issues presented, but I don't think it will turn them into killers. People who kill to kill are usually people with psychological problems, people who get a rush, sexual or otherwise, from death. Bundy, Dahmer, Gein...these were people with serious issues, not people who played a game. Despite the environment presented, people will come to see that it's a game and realize just what taking someone's life would entail. Those who don't and go on to kill, are, as said, most often people with problems to begin with, and the game may be an initial outlet, just as many serial killers start with animals.

As for being rewarded to kill, it's all part of the environment presented, a part of the game, and I doubt people will associate getting a couple dollars in a video game with a reward for taking the life of a real person.

[Praxius]

The bottom line that I see, is that all the other kinds of violence in games has been played to death, in a manner of speaking. GTA just opened up another direction of violence and bad things.... hell.. my parents complained about the detailed violence in the nintedo..... kids are brought up around more technology then we have been, they know what they are doing for the most part....

exactly how many parents here get their child to hook up their computers or fix them?