Warren Spector critizes Rockstar with GTA Series [Archive]

mckmas8808

04-Nov-2005, 04:04

Grand Theft Auto revolutionized gaming by creating a world where gamers can roam and explore at will - a breakthrough in interactivity in the industry. GTA's brand of urban violence has spawned a legion of imitators, as well as sharp criticism from groups ranging from politicians to parents.

"I'm really angry at the Rockstar guys," Spector said in an interview Wednesday at the Montreal International Game Summit. "Not like I'm going to go beat them up and yell at them, but they frustrate me because Grand Theft Auto III, in particular, was an amazing advance in game design. It was a stunning accomplishment as a game design. And it was wrapped in a context that completely for me undid all the good they did on the design side.

"It's like I want to tell my mother 'This is what games can be.' But I can't because they don't get past the beating people up with a baseball bat, stealing cars and crashing them, and the foul language and stuff.

"And I don't think it is necessary. At this point, GTA is the ultimate urban thuggery simulation, and you can't take a step back from that. But I sure wish they would apply the same level of design genius to something we really could show enriches the culture instead of debases it."

The Grand Theft Auto franchise is just one of several titles that has come under fire.

"We are dead square in the cultural crosshairs right now," Spector said. "The kids, the teens, the 20-somethings, they love us. And what that means is the parents and politicians don't."

Part of that scrutiny has comes from the very success of the video game industry, Spector argues. Gaming has become part of the mainstream.

"The more kids and young adults start turning to games to pass the time, to educate themselves and entertain themselves, the more the parents and the cultural gatekeepers will pay attention. And as we're seeing, they're feeling threatened. And that's not something I think we can afford to ignore.

"There's a whole generation of folks out there who do not get games. They grew up without computers. They grew up bugging their parents not by playing Doom but by wearing their hair long and playing rock 'n' roll loud. They don't understand why their son is barricading himself in his room killing demons all day. And they don't understand why their daughter, instead of playing with Barbies which is something they understand, is instead raising families of little virtual electronic people.

"They don't get it. And people blame and fear what they don't understand."

Plus advances in technology have made the gaming experience more real.

"Escaping from a 16-colour virtual world populated by stick figures is one thing. Killing a cop who looks like a cop . . . or being a virtual boxer and watching the blood fly in slow motion. Is it any wonder non-gaming adults in positions of power fear us and our influence?"

"This is not just something we can say 'Ah well, screw them. They're all going to die some day,' " he added to laughter.

But Spector said the matter may take care of itself in due time.

"The problem is there is a really fine line between waiting for a problem to go away, because you know it inevitably will, and just sticking your head in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist.

To that end, Spector says the industry has to create more content besides "mindless pathetic killfests."

"I do think that a lot of the games we make lead to a coarsening of our culture. And I think that inevitably leads to government and judicial intervention. And that means eventual cultural irrelevance."

He argues for more diverse gaming challenges, showing players the consequences of their action and helping them explore a broader range of emotions.

"Because right now pretty much all we offer is a cheap adrenalin rush."

Great, great article. I love his game design, but also think that his look on the industry is quite weird. I thought one of the biggest games of the summer was Nintendogs? That didn't have blood, guns, and curse words in it.

Discuss

link (http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/artslife/story.html?id=7c57b4c9-a33e-4a55-978e-23799b18c41f)

Jabjabs

04-Nov-2005, 04:14

Personally I would prefer the world of GTA over System shock and Dues Ex. They may be flights of fancy but not all games have to be fantastical. It's just his prefrence though as he is more in touch with the classical/retro side of gaming.

Hardknock

04-Nov-2005, 04:16

I agree with everything he said.

Bobbler

04-Nov-2005, 04:23

While he has solid points, I think if GTA was in any other form or non existant at all it would be a rather large loss. GTA3 was quite an entertaining game for what it was -- not every game has to be for all ages. Additionally, what stops another company from employing similar game design without resorting to the violence -- what stops Warren himself from doing it?

I am not sure I understand why he hates GTA so much -- there isn't anything patently wrong with games like GTA IF there is also a suitable number of games that show the other end of the spectrum of gaming (non violent -- be it a sims type game or a love story). The problem I have with the way he talks there is it seems like he doesn't think GTA3 should have been like it was at all, instead of thinking there should have been a GTA3 and then another game to counteract it (grand world, interactive, etc, but non violent or whatever). I can't agree with him if he wants to limit the genres and stories in any sort of way -- I will agree with him if all he wants is more games that we could show our parents that doesn't come at the expense of games like GTA3.

Sorry if that was a bit hard to read, I am having trouble putting it into words.

Bad_Boy

04-Nov-2005, 04:23

Blade

04-Nov-2005, 04:36

I don't think he's necessarily bothered by GTA3 as much as he is Rockstar for putting pretty much all of their modern games in a violent context.

Or should I say, ultra-violent.

Spector himself has traditionally crafted adult games, but nothing quite on the scale of GTA.

I think it's true, honestly. I mean, I like GTA1 through SA as much as anybody, but let's move on. Make a real departure before creating another GTA sequel. Manhunt and The Warriors and State of Emergency and all of your other gory, violent crap doesn't count.

Hardknock

04-Nov-2005, 04:36

I really dont agree with him. GTA has allways been a huge killfest and he expects it to change as soon as it went 3d? He should create his own engine and apply his own ideas to what thinkks should be set, but he tried that already no? :P

I don't think he necessarily wants to change GTA. He just wants Rockstar to apply the same open-ended gameplay concepts to a game with a more family-safe theme.

PARANOiA

04-Nov-2005, 04:36

I agree with everything he said.

I agree with everything Hardknock said.

mckmas8808

04-Nov-2005, 04:42

I will agree with him if all he wants is more games that we could show our parents that doesn't come at the expense of games like GTA3.

For the record I agree with most of the stuff that he said. But Bobbler I can't even agree with him with what you said in your quote. You know why? Because we already have many many games that kids can show their parents that doesn't come at the expense of GTA3. First of all I have to say is Nintendo. If I had a 8 year old kid and I didn't want him or her to play games like GTA3, then I would buy them a Nintendo Gamecube or DS. Both of those sysems can keep you entertained for hundreds of hours without playing "M" rated games.

mckmas8808

04-Nov-2005, 04:45

Inane_Dork

04-Nov-2005, 04:53

I agree with a lot of Spector's points. Gamers on forums like to thumb their e-noses at lots of things, but that only serves to antagonize and perpetuate errant stereotypes. If parents are a little scared about how much time kids spend playing video games, then it's in our best interest to educate them. Sure, it's not our responsibility, but welcome to Earth. That's how it is here.

And I completely sympathize with his comment about GTA3 in specific. I would love to own the game and show it off as what games can do nowadays. But I can't because the veneer is WAY too offensive and eye catching to most people. I'm not saying we should not have GTA3. Rather, I'm asking where is the GTA3 aimed at a people group other than 14 year old boys.

Hardknock

04-Nov-2005, 05:02

You guys are missing the point, our industry is becoming really one-sided. If your game isn't overly violent then you don't get approved with a huge budget for the game, which cuts the quality and cuts on the exposure(advertising).

Kameo(one of the very few big-budget family adventure games that we've seen recently is an exception), which makes me appreciate it even more. Could you imagine the type of game Rockstar could make if they were to put the same effort and money into a non overtly violent game as they do with GTA?

In today's world if you don't like violent games you are really getting the short end of the stick because not as much effort(as a whole) goes into these games anymore. Which is a stark contrast to the 16bit and 32bit days. Although Nintendo is still holding it down, why can't other companies branch out and put in the same amount of time and money that they put into their violent games?

fearsomepirate

04-Nov-2005, 05:03

Well I think his point that there's a preponderance of overly violent games, and that most innovation is geared toward killing people better, is well made. I also don't think games have to be either absurdly violent or "family-friendly." Your game can be "family-friendly" and still not be culturally enriching. How many games make any kind of contribution beyond raw entertainment? I think a good example of a game that could be considered "culturally enriching" is Shadow of the Colossus, not Nintendogs or Tetris. The game could have been just about killing a bunch of giant beasts and nothing more, but they managed to put this whole dimension in it that makes you think about your actions in a moral context. Not many games manage to make the player thing "now why am I killing this thing?" or even feel regret at sending a mass of polygons and pixels crashing to the ground. I think that games largely tell stories through violence just due to the concept of a game as something you "win," meaning there's something you have to "defeat." Whenever the concept of a game becomes concrete enough (as opposed to abstract puzzle games and board games) to have a realized story, it's almost always a violent game of some sort (only exceptions I can think of offhand are sims). I think you have to take that as a given unless you're really going to break the concept of "game." The question then becomes one of what you're going to do with the medium. What kind of feelings do you want to evoke? What do you want to make people think about as they go about their tasks in the game? What story are you going to tell through those actions, and what's going to be the point?

Maybe it's a losing game. I think it's probably a lot harder to do that with a video game than you'd think. It's way to easy to devolve into mowing down waves of identical baddies.

Bad_Boy

04-Nov-2005, 05:59

I don't think he necessarily wants to change GTA. He just wants Rockstar to apply the same open-ended gameplay concepts to a game with a more family-safe theme.
so like a gigantic 'the sims' game? ill pass.
if gta wasnt a violent game, what would he like you to do? i think he should of been a bit more specific what kind of concepts he would of changed..

but i do think other companies are going the way of huge open ended cities withouth much loading thats very "explorable" americas wasteland for example which is a different genre from gta. and i do beleive unreal engine 3 can create some pretty large open areas, but im not sure about as far as the extent to san andreas's size.

So movie companies like lets say LGF need to stop making movies like Saw II? They like the hard dead on super gory violent movies, just like R* loves to make their games.
agreed. its like someone not liking mario because its too kiddy and thinks it should be turned into a violent fighting game. rockstar is rockstar. let them create the games they create, its been going right for them so far, i enjoy their games a lot; no matter how mature/violent some think they are.

PARANOiA

04-Nov-2005, 06:30

so like a gigantic 'the sims' game? ill pass.
if gta wasnt a violent game, what would he like you to do? i think he should of been a bit more specific what kind of concepts he would of changed...

It's that kind of attitude that stifles innovation in this industry.

Platon

04-Nov-2005, 06:39

I really don't agree with him on the point of GTAIII bringing in this open ended 3D world that you could explore at will for the first time, I mean didn't elder scrolls come well before that? And I am sure there are other games before that. Wasn't the new thing in GTAIII all about being the bad, ultra-violent guy?

And yes most of the games now a days are violent, but most video games have been violent, even mario is about "killing" stuff, but now that the graphics have advanced so much the violence has become more believable, and also since we have relistic graphics developers are like "look how cool our gore looks in the game". But there might come a change when gamers will want something more with their gameing rather than just killing better...

mckmas8808

04-Nov-2005, 07:15

It's that kind of attitude that stifles innovation in this industry.

Actually it isn't. I just you didn't know that the biggest game of the summer was Nintendogs. I know any kid can show that to momma. And tell me that this game didn't get a lot of exposure and hype.

wazoo

04-Nov-2005, 08:53

I agree with him.

I've never bought (I tried the game anyway) GTA because the setup was too offensive for me. I know I miss a great gameplay experience, but I do not want to play at the expense of doing things I would refuse to do from a moral point of view.

I have no problems with violents games usually because you are the good guy.

one

04-Nov-2005, 09:28

Change the title 'Grand Theft Auto' into another, then it won't sell.

Gubbi

04-Nov-2005, 09:44

Another point that is normally missed by the thought police: You don't have to beat up every single pedestrian in the game with a baseball bat, in fact, it's kind of counter-productive.

Cheers
Gubbi

london-boy

04-Nov-2005, 10:07

.Melchiah.

04-Nov-2005, 10:21

Another point that is normally missed by the thought police: You don't have to beat up every single pedestrian in the game with a baseball bat, in fact, it's kind of counter-productive.

Cheers
Gubbi

Exactly.

Some journalist in Finland made a big fuss about how she beat up pedestrians and drove over them, and shagged hookers in GTA, eventhough none of those acts are mandatory in the game. IMO, it tells something about her, that she actually CHOSE to beat up pedestrians to bloody pulp.

Shifty Geezer

04-Nov-2005, 10:56

I've never really gone along with the 'it's not real so who cares if it's violent' mentality. If people enjoy pretending to be gangsters with realistic thuggery, doesn't that reflect somewhat on their mentality? I don't like the idea of pretending to beat people up - not realistically. Something like Tekken or whatever that's fantastical and unreal in presentation is okay. But when it's trying to be real, is it really a good idea? If there's nothing wrong with it, how's about a game where you play a rapist, and have to rape as many victims as you can while avoiding the police? Or if as long as it's a fantasy it doesn't matter, how's about leveraging next-gen visual graphics to release a child-molesting game with photorealistic representations of your victims? If the paedophiles enjoy it and can live their fantasies without actually doing anything wrong in the real world, is it okay to feed those fantasies?

By my reckoning, people who enjoy watching suffering or the morally dubious activities people can do aren't really healthy. But that includes an AWFUL lot of people. From the Roman circuses and people enjoying the brutality there, to enjoying graphic representations as good as the circuses made on a TV screen, if they get a thrill out of seeing suffering and like to imagine themselves commit such acts, that don't seem right to me, yet it's mainstay of contemporary media. Personally I'd rather hang out with people who when they have spare time to themselves think 'I'd like to play that sport sims/save the world from aliens game/breed some new farm animals/pop bubbles with my dragon' rather than those that think 'I want to pretend to smack people around with a baseball bat/steal cars and run over pedestrians/gun down law enforcers/rape every living thing I come across'. People that think that way are surely closer to doing those things than people who can't stand the thought of such games?

I don't see that the bad is needed in games. People used to enjoy badger and bear baiting, but it's been baneed and since then most people would hate to have to watch that level of violence. I'm sure if people used to enjoying violence moved away from it, after a while they'd get pretty sick of it. Maybe.

Gubbi

04-Nov-2005, 11:27

Gubbi

04-Nov-2005, 11:29

Rant: The fundamental problem is that parents in general have zero interest in their kids and what they are up to. To them a computer or console is just about the greatest babysitter EVAR.

Cheers
Gubbi

Scott_Arm

04-Nov-2005, 13:06

I think there should be more of a balance between violent and non-violent games. Right now, I'd say 90% of games are very violent. You've got some sports games to cover the rest, and a few other things.

I think his problem is that people are making all these really great designs for games that open up all kinds of possibilities for different gaming experiences that a broad audience could enjoy, but they always end up being killfests, which narrows the audience to teenagers and young men, mostly.

And it definitely doesn't do much to attract positive attention towards games.

fearsomepirate

04-Nov-2005, 13:47

it, it's just a bigger thrill to look down the barrel of a shotgun (at either end), or beat somebody to a pulp with a kick-punch-punch-kick combo than grapping fruits and flipping turtles on your Nintendo.

Then why did the port of Super Mario Bros to the GBA sell so well? Why is there more clamor among gamers for Mr Miyamoto to get with it and get done with Mario 128 than for GTA MCXVIII?

Just dealing with one example, if the terrorists in Counterstrike had to fly jet planes into sky scrapers, and if you win you have to watch people scream and die for 10 minutes, it would be a different story. Or if the terrorists' goal was to suicide bomb a bus full of Israeli schoolchildren. There's a level of abstraction in that game that keeps it pretty fake.

Another thing is that once you push a boundary to mainstream, it pushed the boundary way back. Maybe rape games aren't sellable now, but 20 years ago, neither was GTA. GTA took what was a marginal idea (you'd seen this kind of mayhem before in Postal, but it was always considered on the boundaries of good taste) and made it mainstream. Now a game like Manhunt is considered marginal. It's what we always point to as being on the absolute boundary of good taste. If they manage to make a straight-up murder simulator mainstream (sell 5 million units or something), it won't any longer be considered to be a marginal case, i.e. on the edge of what a violent game can be like. So someone else will make something even more extreme, and that will be the marginal case that everyone talks about and goes "oh man, nothing beyond this will sell!" But then that becomes mainstream, and then...

40 years ago, you couldn't show more than a flash of a breast in a film and have more than a few swear words. 30 years ago, long nude scenes and endless strings of f-bombs were almost unthinkable. 20 years ago, no one thought full frontal nudity would ever be in a feature film. It's a good example of how once the margines are made mainstream, they create new margins, which remain marginal only until someone figures out how to make them mainstream. Will you ever be able to go into a rated R movie and watch a hardcore sex scene? Maybe not next year, but in 30 years?

Romans didn't just wake up one day and start having gladiator fights and watching people get ripped to shreds by lions, you know.

Oh, and for what it's worth, how do you AVOID driving through people in GTA? The controls are so horrid that I always inadvertently end up rolling over a few pedestrians.

Panajev2001a

04-Nov-2005, 13:52

Scott_Arm

04-Nov-2005, 14:00

40 years ago, you couldn't show more than a flash of a breast in a film and have more than a few swear words. 30 years ago, long nude scenes and endless strings of f-bombs were almost unthinkable. 20 years ago, no one thought full frontal nudity would ever be in a feature film. It's a good example of how once the margines are made mainstream, they create new margins, which remain marginal only until someone figures out how to make them mainstream. Will you ever be able to go into a rated R movie and watch a hardcore sex scene? Maybe not next year, but in 30 years?

Not that this is relevant in any way, but there was full frontal nudity in films in the early 70s and plenty of swearing. There was also brief nudity or maybe even full frontal in the late 60s. Your point still stands though.

london-boy

04-Nov-2005, 14:07

Didn't Taxi Driver have the F-word being shouted something like 200 times? That was what, 30 years ago or so?

digitalwanderer

04-Nov-2005, 14:13

I really don't see what the fuss is about, what is so family unfriendly about GTA?

It's wholesome good family fun. Me, my wife, and my kids all play and love the series. :)

Powderkeg

04-Nov-2005, 14:39

40 years ago, you couldn't show more than a flash of a breast in a film and have more than a few swear words. 30 years ago, long nude scenes and endless strings of f-bombs were almost unthinkable. 20 years ago, no one thought full frontal nudity would ever be in a feature film.

I think you're about 20 years off on your estimates. 40+ years ago Jayne Mansfield was doing full frontal nudity in Promises, Promises, 30+ years ago Al Pachino was dropping F-Bombs left and right in The Godfather.

27 years ago Brooke Shields starred in Pretty Baby. Don't even suggest nudity was off limits if you haven't seen that. I'm still amazed that it's even legal.

Blade

04-Nov-2005, 14:53

Remember the MPAA and the rating system.

Back in the 70's, you really had to earn R ratings. R-rated movies were knock-your-socks-off sexual/violent.

ban25

04-Nov-2005, 14:58

You guys are missing the point, our industry is becoming really one-sided. If your game isn't overly violent then you don't get approved with a huge budget for the game, which cuts the quality and cuts on the exposure(advertising).

Shadow of the Collossus? Forza Motorsport?

Kameo(one of the very few big-budget family adventure games that we've seen recently is an exception), which makes me appreciate it even more. Could you imagine the type of game Rockstar could make if they were to put the same effort and money into a non overtly violent game as they do with GTA?

Jak 2?

In today's world if you don't like violent games you are really getting the short end of the stick because not as much effort(as a whole) goes into these games anymore. Which is a stark contrast to the 16bit and 32bit days...

You must not have been around for Mortal Kombat and Night-trap.

ban25

04-Nov-2005, 15:09

Maybe rape games aren't sellable now, but 20 years ago, neither was GTA.

Speaking of 20 years ago...

http://www.atariage.com/software_page.html?SoftwareLabelID=119

20 years ago, no one thought full frontal nudity would ever be in a feature film.

Watch 1984 for a 21-year-old movie with plenty of full frontal nudity.

see colon

04-Nov-2005, 15:25

i'm a parent. my daughter is young (just turned 2) so i won't be letting he play "M" rated games any time soon. but when the time, i'm sure she'll besome a violent sociopath because of the mind poisoning powers of videogames. check out how violent we've become, as a nation...

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/images/content_images/2.2.gif
source: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/index.html

keep in mind that GTAIII was released in october of 2001. it's mind poisoning effects are apparent just one year later! look at violent crime shoot through the roof, spiraling out of control like an unmaned unicycle on a stunt course.

videogames are such a violent media that 17% of games in 2004 had to be rated "M" by the ESRB. the MPAA found it fit to rate only 54% of movies in 2004 "R".

Scott_Arm

04-Nov-2005, 16:27

I don't think anyone here is worried that violence in games is going to create violent people. I think it's more just a grip that 90% of games are violent and that violence does not appeal to everyone. As long as such a high percentage of games are violent, gaming will always be targetting by certain groups and there will be regulations and blah blah blah. I think Warren was just a little more upset that we're pushing new and interesting technology in games, but all it's being used for is mindless killing games.

mckmas8808

04-Nov-2005, 17:12

I kinda agree with him, because personally i just don't like the whole sad gangsta culture in videogames (though they sell lots because kids love that), but it has to be said that GTA3 isn't the only free-roaming game out there.

If someone wants a free roaming game without the whole gangsta crap

I do worry sometimes though, that kids just seem to prefer this whole gangsta culture. Very dangerous if you ask me, but it's certainly not videogames that put those idiotic ideas in their minds. If there's something to worry about, it's not gangsta videogames, it's gangsta people and how they affect the culture and the people around them.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, slow down chief.:lol: Man you sound like somebody's daddy. What's going on with you l-b. I thought you were cool lol. This whole gangsta thing didn't start with GTA and it sure didn't start with Rap music (like a lot of people think). Haven't you seen the classic movies like Scarface, The Godfather, Goodfellas, Boys N Tha Hood, Menece to Society, hell even The Sopranos?

This form of entertainment has been around for over 50 years. I seen a black and white movie that was about Al Capone. The dude in the movie was cool as hell with that Tommy gun too. Most rappers favorite movies are these gangsta movies. They name themselves after the characters in the movie.

Again this form of media has been around for ages. It's games like GTA III that have started to bring that same kinda of media that's been around for over 50 years to the consoles and PCs. I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. If a person has a problem with GTA type games and want to critize the volience then they shouldn't like volient movies or TV shows either.

london-boy

04-Nov-2005, 17:21

Whoa, whoa, whoa, slow down chief.:lol: Man you sound like somebody's daddy. What's going on with you l-b. I thought you were cool lol. This whole gangsta thing didn't start with GTA and it sure didn't start with Rap music (like a lot of people think). Haven't you seen the classic movies like Scarface, The Godfather, Goodfellas, Boys N Tha Hood, Menece to Society, hell even The Sopranos?

I never said gangsta culture started with Hip-Hop music or GTA or whatever, did i?

My point is that i just don't think it's a good culture to be in at all.

This form of entertainment has been around for over 50 years. I seen a black and white movie that was about Al Capone. The dude in the movie was cool as hell with that Tommy gun too. Most rappers favorite movies are these gangsta movies. They name themselves after the characters in the movie.

I know.

Again this form of media has been around for ages. It's games like GTA III that have started to bring that same kinda of media that's been around for over 50 years to the consoles and PCs. I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. If a person has a problem with GTA type games and want to critize the volience then they shouldn't like volient movies or TV shows either.

My point wasn't that GTA brought anythng to the table.

My point was that the whole gangsta culture (which started with italians funny enough, decades ago, and has now been embraced by all kinds of ethnic groups, from asian to black to grannies to giraffes) needs to die. hard. with a bullet in da head ya no'!! :lol:

mckmas8808

04-Nov-2005, 17:27

I never said gangsta culture started with Hip-Hop music or GTA or whatever, did i?

My point is that i just don't think it's a good culture to be in at all.

I know.

My point wasn't that GTA brought anythng to the table.

My point was that the whole gangsta culture (which started with italians funny enough, decades ago, and has now been embraced by all kinds of ethnic groups, from asian to black to grannies to giraffes) needs to die. hard. with a bullet in da head ya no'!! :lol:

I know you didn't say it. I was generalizing because that's what a lot of people say. I love watching the gangsta lifestyle myself. But I can understand your position.

I don't think anyone here is worried that violence in games is going to create violent people. I think it's more just a grip that 90% of games are violent and that violence does not appeal to everyone. As long as such a high percentage of games are violent, gaming will always be targetting by certain groups and there will be regulations and blah blah blah.

Slow down Scott. You must have missed this post.

videogames are such a violent media that 17% of games in 2004 had to be rated "M" by the ESRB.

That means 83% of games sold were Teen or lower. You have 83% to pick from what do you want? Where are you getting this 90% volient game stuff from? Most games are not that super volient at all.

london-boy

04-Nov-2005, 17:31

That means 83% of games sold were Teen or lower. You have 83% to pick from what do you want? Where are you getting this 90% volient game stuff from? Most games are not that super volient at all.

I think the whole problem is that that little 17% of violent games make up more than 80% of total games sales. :wink:

mckmas8808

04-Nov-2005, 17:48

I think the whole problem is that that little 17% of violent games make up more than 80% of total games sales. :wink:

If that's true then that's not R* problem now is it? Tell Myamoto and others to step their Mario Kart racing game up.:grin:

No seriously games like SOTC, the whole Jak series, Rachet and Clank series, all Mario games, and of course sports games like Madden have to sell more the 17% 'M' rated games. I think most of this too many volient game stuff is just made up by people that don't like games like that.

london-boy

04-Nov-2005, 17:54

see colon

04-Nov-2005, 18:04

If that's true then that's not R* problem now is it? Tell Myamoto and others to step their Mario Kart racing game up.:grin:

No seriously games like SOTC, the whole Jak series, Rachet and Clank series, all Mario games, and of course sports games like Madden have to sell more the 17% 'M' rated games. I think most of this too many volient game stuff is just made up by people that don't like games like that.

to clarify that statistic, 17% of games released in 2004 were rated "M". sales are a totaly different story. the top 2 games of 2004 were GTA:SA for the ps2 and Halo 2 for the xbox. the only other "M" rated title in the top 10 was Halo.

Annual 2004 Top 10 Video Game Titles, Ranked By Units Sold

RANK TITLE PLATFORM PUBLISHER RELEASE DATE ARP
1 Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas PS2 Take II Interactive Oct’04 $49
2 Halo 2* XBX Microsoft Nov’04 $52
3 Madden NFL 2005* PS2 Electronic Arts Aug’04 $49
4 ESPN NFL 2K5 PS2 Take II Interactive Jul’04 $19
5 Need For Speed: Underground 2 PS2 Electronic Arts Nov’04 $48
6 Pokemon Fire Red W/ Adapter GBA Nintendo of America Sep’04 $32
7 NBA Live 2005 PS2 Electronic Arts Sep’04 $33
8 Spider-Man: The Movie 2 PS2 Activision Jun’04 $43
9 Halo XBX Microsoft Nov’01 $29
10 ESPN NFL 2K5 XBX Take II Interactive Jul’04 $19
Source: The NPD Group / NPD Funworld® / Point-of-Sale
*Includes Limited & Collector’s Editions
http://www.npdfunworld.com/funServlet?nextpage=pr_body.html&content_id=2076

it's important to note that 2004 was an incredibly weak year for nintendo. i wonder how many versions of nintendogs will be on 2005's list.

dubyateeeff

04-Nov-2005, 18:28

This is written with humour. I actually likes his games so...

"I'm really angry at the Rockstar guys," Spector said in an interview Wednesday at the Montreal International Game Summit. "Not like I'm going to go beat them up and yell at them...

Doesnt sound like he played GTA, he would have gotten violent and beaten them up afterwards.

It was a stunning accomplishment as a game design. And it was wrapped in a context that completely for me undid all the good they did on the design side.

I guess Warren never made a violent game. If he would, he would just be a hypocrite.

Lets see... ah, he made Ultima Underworld (awesome game series btw)... which is kinda an "open fantasy world" where you can attack civilians or peaceful NPCs... just like in GTA... But that was so long ago, I guess he never made a violent game after that.

"But I sure wish they would apply the same level of design genius to something we really could show enriches the culture instead of debases it."

Warren should try applying for a job at Nintendo... It sounds like he is a Nintedo ****** anyway.

Plus advances in technology have made the gaming experience more real. ...
"Escaping from a 16-colour virtual world populated by stick figures is one thing. Killing a cop who looks like a cop . . . or being a virtual boxer and watching the blood fly in slow motion. Is it any wonder non-gaming adults in positions of power fear us and our influence?"

It is not about how real it looks, we have movies. We have TV-news. It is about the level of immersion. And if it feels like killing someone, people would automaticly stop playing that violent game (most of us anyway).

He argues for more diverse gaming challenges, showing players the consequences of their action and helping them explore a broader range of emotions.

He should risk it and play GTA, then he will see what the action of killing someone is... He will realise almost no one is killed, just hurt so much that they pass out in a pool of blood till the ambulance men resucitates them. Or they disappear to save memory. And that the police will start pursuing you. Of course, since we cant have a game where someone is in jail for +20 years we get a fast forward of 6 hours, but hey, it is just a game.

The best thing about it is, GTA was designed for last gen. Next gen will be even more realistic... wonder what will happen then.

:twisted:

Scott_Arm

04-Nov-2005, 18:31

Slow down Scott. You must have missed this post.

That means 83% of games sold were Teen or lower. You have 83% to pick from what do you want? Where are you getting this 90% volient game stuff from? Most games are not that super volient at all.

Well, Teen rated games are usually violent games as well. They just aren't graphic. I just think the gaming industry sells violence, for the most part. And it's usually the violent games that get the most money, the most advertising and the most attention. I play them too. I like them. But I can see how someone in the industry could be upset that the achievements of their medium is being overshadowed by debates about ratings etc.

mckmas8808

04-Nov-2005, 19:00

Well, Teen rated games are usually violent games as well. They just aren't graphic. I just think the gaming industry sells violence, for the most part. And it's usually the violent games that get the most money, the most advertising and the most attention. I play them too. I like them. But I can see how someone in the industry could be upset that the achievements of their medium is being overshadowed by debates about ratings etc.

I understand Scott but honestly that's the way of the world. Movies, music, TV shows, etc. everything is being sold with violence or/sex to sell more and make more money. Videogames is just one of the many mediums that this is happening in. There is a strong balance in the videogame industry though. More balance than in movies anyway (not that its saying much:sad: ).

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to argue with you. Just having a friendly debate and I do realize that you also play some of these violent games that we are talking about too.

Scott_Arm

04-Nov-2005, 21:37

I understand Scott but honestly that's the way of the world. Movies, music, TV shows, etc. everything is being sold with violence or/sex to sell more and make more money. Videogames is just one of the many mediums that this is happening in. There is a strong balance in the videogame industry though. More balance than in movies anyway (not that its saying much:sad: ).

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to argue with you. Just having a friendly debate and I do realize that you also play some of these violent games that we are talking about too.

THere is quite a bit of violence in tv and the movies. I think tv is actually more balanced than video games in offering alternatives to violence. And the way violence is portrayed is somewhat different. You don't see shows about people driving around in cards running people down for the hell of it. That's something you'd see at the movies ;) TV has a lot to offer other than violence, and games do as well, but to a lesser extent. It seems big budget titles are usually violent games. I'd think that movies were more on par with games, but there are a lot of high quality dramas, comedies that are not violent or that contain very little violence. There may be a lot of games that aren't violent, but if you're looking at high quality titles, there doesn't seem to be too many. I'd think of the three industries, video games pander to violence more than any of the others.

mckmas8808

04-Nov-2005, 21:40

THere is quite a bit of violence in tv and the movies. I think tv is actually more balanced than video games in offering alternatives to violence. And the way violence is portrayed is somewhat different. You don't see shows about people driving around in cards running people down for the hell of it. That's something you'd see at the movies ;) TV has a lot to offer other than violence, and games do as well, but to a lesser extent. It seems big budget titles are usually violent games. I'd think that movies were more on par with games, but there are a lot of high quality dramas, comedies that are not violent or that contain very little violence. There may be a lot of games that aren't violent, but if you're looking at high quality titles, there doesn't seem to be too many. I'd think of the three industries, video games pander to violence more than any of the others.

Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree. *shakes Scott's hand*

Dr Evil

04-Nov-2005, 23:12

[ultimate rant on]
I think people who criticise violent games, movies etc. have some difficulties separating facts and fiction, same goes to all you religious people out there. Are you happy now, see what you made me say!.

It's entertainment for crying out loud!, let those who enjoy it have their fun, and let your nosy hippocrat and censorship loving attitude only to quide your own lives and leave the rest out of it. I got better things to worry about than some flowerpower/over conservative a-hole trying to decide what I can or can't play.[ultimate rant off]

Anyways let's not censor things...

mckmas8808

04-Nov-2005, 23:22

fearsomepirate

05-Nov-2005, 00:50

Didn't Taxi Driver have the F-word being shouted something like 200 times? That was what, 30 years ago or so?

OK, so I had the timing wrong. But then, Taxi Driver at the time was an "omg I can't believe what's in this" kind of film. The point still stands, I guess stuff accelerated more rapidly than I though. You see the marginal cases becoming mainstream, which creates new margins, which brings us to today. It's pretty hard to push the envelope sexually anymore without releasing blatant soft porn, and as far as violence goes, where else is there to go?

Reread his article. It's not just "violent games are bad." It's that the violence is becoming just about mindless visceral thrills. Few people are trying to make games that challenge you mentally or make you experience anything other than "that headshot was awesome."

To put it another way, there's too much Attack of the Giant Leeches and not enough Rebel Without a Cause.

Shifty Geezer

05-Nov-2005, 12:32

i'm a parent. my daughter is young (just turned 2) so i won't be letting he play "M" rated games any time soon. but when the time, I’m sure she'll besome a violent sociopath because of the mind poisoning powers of videogames. check out how violent we've become, as a nation...
Firstly your statistics aren’t really any use. People don’t play computer games and commit crimes in isolation. There’s many other factors. For comparison to your stats violent crime is on the increase the EU. The only way to make such a comparison between games and violence is to take a large population and subject them to exactly the same experiences as another similar population, but without violent computer games.

Regards turning people into psychos, I don’t think anyone of sense is saying playing violent games turns people violent, and sit someone in front of GTA and when they’re done they’ll go outside and smack people about. I think the main issues are

1) Does playing violent/anti-sociable/morally-questionable games have a negative effect on people?
2) Are there any limits as to what is okay when it comes to entertainment?
3) If yes to two, who or what should decide those limits?

Now number one has been talked of often, since back in the eighties I remember complaints against the likes of Barbarian. The same is asked of TV and movies too. This is something scientifically immeasurably – there are just too many other influences as to how broader behaviour outside the laboratory is effected. For those that do closed studies trying to compare behaviour in response to computer games without other external influences, for every one that finds a connection between violent games + behaviour, another study doesn’t. All inconclusive. What is needed is some case studies of populations. One might think that historical civilisations who didn’t have violent computer games would be an okay example – “There’s been murders and thuggery long before there were computer games” – but these had other circumstances that would have an affect on peoples behaviour. It’s not like computer games are the only possible cause for violent behaviour! I don’t think there’s any suitable case studies around computer games, but there are examples with other media. There’s a country, Bhutan or Bhopal or something beginning with B I think, that was without TV up until recently. It was ‘backward’, agrarian, and pretty peaceful. Very little violent crime. Then the decision was made to introduce cable TV, 40+ channels of typical Western material. The culture had a huge change, violent crime skyrocketed, murders became far more commonplace where before they were virtually unheard of, girls took to prostitution to pay for the consumer goods being advertised to them... This is the only example we have, AFAIK, of a population where the only change to their culture was the introduction of TV, and from that other changes occurred. Certainly the correlation is there and very apparent.

For me, I see plenty of empirical evidence for the negative side-effects of sex/drugs/violence/etc in media entertainment, though it’s probably impossible for anyone to research it and say for sure yea or nay. Question 1 might never get a conclusive answer, so we’re left with ‘violent games might cause violence, and then again they might not; we don’t know’

So question two. When the anti-gaming lobby makes its complaints, the gaming lobby tend to reply with ‘it’s not real. It’s only a game. I’m not really killing people.’ Is that really a valid argument? If it is, then anything at all is acceptable in games. As my prior example, if someone were to release a game where the intention was to abuse virtual children, would we have no problem with that? How’s about using new technologies, someone can take a photo of a kid on their phone, map it onto a virtual model, and play out their abuse of virtual models of real people? I don’t think anyone (of healthy mentality) would be okay with that. There’d be outrage, no? So why would such a game be unacceptable, when it’s not real and it’s just a computer game? I can’t see how logically, the ‘it’s not real’ argument works, because we know there’s situations where that definitely won’t apply, only no-one yet has thought to create such a piece of software. So why is pretending to beat people up with baseball bat okay but pretending to rape children isn’t? Who sets the standard and decides whether it’s crossed or not?

As Gubbi says, society decides the limits, which is where question three comes in. We don’t know if some computer games can have negative effects on people’s behaviour or not, but we’re certainly not going to let some types of software ever get released. This is going to be decided by society. However, society’s attitudes and tolerances change. I think, and imagine most of you here agree, that capturing people and throwing them into a circus to fight and die for the entertainment of others is wrong. Yet had I, or you, been born and raised in Rome, and from an early age my parents took my down the coliseum to see that, I’d probably have been okay with it. Likewise I have no desire to kill people I dislike and eat them, yet had I been raised on a island with that culture, it’s an activity I’d partake of without any qualms. I don’t go around beating up Jews as I think it’s wrong, but had I been raised in Nazi Germany maybe my opinions and actions would be different? Can society be trusted to choose right from wrong and ensure morally responsible behaviour? I don’t think would argue that works. People have done all sorts of atrocities on the grounds it was acceptable to their population, and many people have since looked back on that behaviour and regretted it. Society can choose values and encourage behaviour that is wrong. Looking to the future, I can be our contemporary culture and abhor the concept of a child-molester simulator, but if in a 100 years time society is okay with that, does it make it right? If you were to pop round a friend’s house today and see them boot up a game where he rapes kids, would be okay with him/her playing that game? Would you okay in 50 years time going round your own children’s house and seeing them playing such a game with you 10 year old grandson? For me, categorically no. And if society were to change to accept any such behaviour, or go back to beating down black folks or using human slaves, I wouldn’t accept society’s standard as a good measure of what’s right or wrong.

This question, who decides what is a fair limit to what’s acceptable, is like the first. It cannot be answered without a true definition of morality, a definition of right and wrong that people can agree to. Is there such a thing as right and wrong, or just the general trends and mores of contemporary culture?

Things are looking pretty inconclusive! Game might be harmless fun with no negative side effects, or an entertainment that has a negative impact on people’s behaviour. Perhaps we’ll never have any definite answers. Faced with a choice, to tolerate such games or do away with them, without definite answers how can we make the right choice? For me, logically, faced with unsure information it’s better to weigh up pro’s and con’s. We can consider the positive and negative benefits to the choices we can make. Eg. If we look at cars as an example, they’re responsible in lots of accidents. If we stopped using cars we’d prevent all those accidents, but at a loss to the convenience that automobiles bring. If we consider violent games are either :

a) Harmless fun, with no negative side effects
b) Entertainment that has a negative impact on people’s behaviour

And the choice to make is either

1) Keep violent computer games
2) Get rid of violent computer games

How would the different choice for 1 or 2 affect society?

In the case of 1b), if we keep the games we’ll be damaging society. For 2b) we get rid of the games and prevent that damage. In the case of 1a) we have an entertainment that we wouldn’t otherwise have, and in the case of 2a) we lose a entertainment.

So our choice really is, keep the games at an unknown risk of damaging society, or lose the games at a risk of losing harmless fun. Which do we prioritise? In the case of cars if we go without them we lose a lot of convenience, but if we go without GTA we lose a game, when there’s many alternatives that can be enjoyed in it’s place, no? We’ll still have our computer game entertainments covering all sorts of genres. We’ll have sports, FPS, RTS, fantasy RPGs. The only thing missing is games that simulate criminal culture. Is that something we can’t do without?

That’s how my reasoning goes. Where most arguments for and against seem to be subjective based on personal ideologies, I can see an logical justification for not allowing realistic violence against humanity etc. centred games. Unless someone can either convince me anything is permissible in computer games, which means convincing me a child molester game is acceptable (Dr Evil might be able to offer reasoning for these seeing as he/she is so dead set against censorship); or convince me that the differences between GTA and a such a child-molester game are decided by a fair party and that party can be trusted to make the right decisions, whether that party be a governmental institution, the games industry, or society itself, and that party’s moral judgements aren’t affected by contemporary fashions of conscience; or convince me there’s no such thing as morality and people should just be free to do whatever they want – I don’t see that not producing such games is a bad thing.

Of course it gets rather grey in some places. As Gubbi says, where do you draw the line and why? But I trust we all agree a line has to be drawn at some point. For myself I’ve played and do play ‘violent’ games, but fantastic and unrealistic. I think game intentions and implementations are where the lines need be drawn. I think it’s when the settings and actions become realistic and the enjoyment is found (for some if not for all that play the game) in the acts of barbarism or criminality. A WW2 combat game is okay as they are, but when you can realistically run in and slash up a soldier with repeated knife attacks and delight in his screams and gurgles from his blood-filled lungs, or buy you virtual corpse controller attachment that has a silicon rubber body and knife that simulates the feel of really knifing people, that’s way over the line.

And if a clear line can’t be drawn, I for one wouldn’t care to see the abolition of all realistic violent games. I’ll still have football, racers, platformers, Final Fantasy (not that care much for that game), ICO and SotC, Katamari Damarcy, EyeToy wierdness, Revolution funness, Tetris and a myriad of puzzlers, comical Lemmings and Worms. It’s not like violence is a necessary part of my game play experience.

see colon

05-Nov-2005, 12:59

Firstly your statistics aren’t really any use. People don’t play computer games and commit crimes in isolation. There’s many other factors. For comparison to your stats violent crime is on the increase the EU.
aren't violent/bloody/gory games usualy toned down for european release?

Metal

05-Nov-2005, 14:44

see colon

05-Nov-2005, 16:29

I respect Warren's opinion here and I also like the GTA series. You see you don't have to be on defense 24/7 when someone says something bad about a gaming series / company you like. I'm not paid by Rockstar, so I could give a flip.
is this directed at me? for the record, i've never purchased a rockstar title. i do own GTAIII for pc now, because a friend of mine was moving and was cleaning out his closet, but that's about it. i've played som GTAIII and some GTA:VC, and a small amount of midnight club 1 and 2, and wild metal once on the DC. i'm not a rockstar fan by any means, and certainly not a GTA fan. i'm just tired of the witch hunt.

my favorite game DMA designs (now rockstar north) ever made was uniracers on the snes. i never owned it, just rented it a bunch. i would have purchased it, but no place carried it where i lived at the time.

mckmas8808

05-Nov-2005, 19:27

I respect Warren's opinion here and I also like the GTA series. You see you don't have to be on defense 24/7 when someone says something bad about a gaming series / company you like. I'm not paid by Rockstar, so I could give a flip.

And I know this isn't directed at me just because I'm defending the GTA series. I think people are living in the land of OZ when they say, "There are too many violent games and not enough soft hearted nice games". I would say what do they call games like Zelda, every different variation of Mario games, Ico, Madden, Live, the one billion Japanese RPGs, MMOs, MMORPGs, DDR, all the eyetoy like games, Nintendogs, Donkey Kong games, Kamanari Damancy, Lumines, Locoroco (that PSP game), the Burnout series, Gran Turismo series, Kameo, Every Extend Extra, Singstar, the Tony Hawk series, the Final Frame series, Zone of Enders, etc. etc. etc.

I could go on forever about games that are not super violent that are good. It's the media that has you guys confuse. And I'm confused of how a great videogame board can be confused by this? :???: Out of anybody it should be us that know about all the non violent games that we can play.

Does the DS and GBA not count as videogame machines anymore? Was Lumines not created? And why the hell do people act like Nintendo has quit as a company? Everytime a developer talks about next-gen they always seem to leave out Nintendo. Most of the games Nintendo makes are non-violent. That's 1/3 of the console choice that gamers have. This conversation should be cut in the balls just by Nintendo games alone.

And that's not even talking about all the other games that I listed above. And that's not even all of them. Like see colon posted above only 17% of games in 2004 were 'M' rated. 7 out of the top 10 games in 2004 were not 'M' rated. So what's the problem?

Scott_Arm

05-Nov-2005, 19:49

And I know this isn't directed at me just because I'm defending the GTA series. I think people are living in the land of OZ when they say, "There are too many violent games and not enough soft hearted nice games". I would say what do they call games like Zelda, every different variation of Mario games, Ico, Madden, Live, the one billion Japanese RPGs, MMOs, MMORPGs, DDR, all the eyetoy like games, Nintendogs, Donkey Kong games, Kamanari Damancy, Lumines, Locoroco (that PSP game), the Burnout series, Gran Turismo series, Kameo, Every Extend Extra, Singstar, the Tony Hawk series, the Final Frame series, Zone of Enders, etc. etc. etc.

I could go on forever about games that are not super violent that are good. It's the media that has you guys confuse. And I'm confused of how a great videogame board can be confused by this? :???: Out of anybody it should be us that know about all the non violent games that we can play.

Does the DS and GBA not count as videogame machines anymore? Was Lumines not created? And why the hell do people act like Nintendo has quit as a company? Everytime a developer talks about next-gen they always seem to leave out Nintendo. Most of the games Nintendo makes are non-violent. That's 1/3 of the console choice that gamers have. This conversation should be cut in the balls just by Nintendo games alone.

And that's not even talking about all the other games that I listed above. And that's not even all of them. Like see colon posted above only 17% of games in 2004 were 'M' rated. 7 out of the top 10 games in 2004 were not 'M' rated. So what's the problem?

I've never heard of a lot of those games you mentioned. Perhaps the problem is not that there aren't enough non-violent games, but that the ones that aren't don't get any visibility. And you can't just blame the media scare for that one. A lot of it has to do with where the publishers decide to put their advertising dollars. Personally, I would classify burnout as a violent game, it's just a different style of violence. And every time I see DDR I feel like I've been assaulted, if that counts.

I wouldn't say I'm a hardcore gamer or anything, but I frequently check out IGN and Gamespy for game news, and I browse these forums. Perhaps it's my focus on PC rather than consoles that gives me a different point of view. PC gaming may cater to an older audience, and tend to lean towards more violent games.

mckmas8808

05-Nov-2005, 20:05

I've never heard of a lot of those games you mentioned. Perhaps the problem is not that there aren't enough non-violent games, but that the ones that aren't don't get any visibility. And you can't just blame the media scare for that one. A lot of it has to do with where the publishers decide to put their advertising dollars. Personally, I would classify burnout as a violent game, it's just a different style of violence. And every time I see DDR I feel like I've been assaulted, if that counts.

I wouldn't say I'm a hardcore gamer or anything, but I frequently check out IGN and Gamespy for game news, and I browse these forums. Perhaps it's my focus on PC rather than consoles that gives me a different point of view. PC gaming may cater to an older audience, and tend to lean towards more violent games.

All the bolded sentences is what the problem is with your opinion. Not attacking you because even you revealed that you are not a hardcore gamer. But you have to agree to have a good debate you have to know as much information as possible. Those games that I listed above are ALL hits. Well a few haven't come out yet like Locoroco and Every Extend Extra but they are getting alot of buzz with gamers.

Don't take this analogy the wrong way Scott but you are like a White person that is racist toward black people, yet that didn't even met one before. Meaning that you really can't speak apon something that you don't have enough knowledge of.

And this is what in lies the problem. The media per sey don't know about Nintendogs, DDR, Final Fantasy, Kamanary Damancy, and the like. So they go after the main top selling game that has violence like GTA. This in turn gives the media higher ratings for their TV shows, news channels, and newspapers.

They know most parents don't want to read about great games like Nintendogs or Kameo and how they might effect their kids. Its scare tatics like telling them about GTA that gets the ratings. Just like the hated on Elvis about the way he moved his hips in the 50s (even though he stole that style of dance and that never gets talked about).

Bottom line there is a big choice of games out there for people to choose from. If it wasn't the game industry would fall faster than a comet.

Shifty Geezer

05-Nov-2005, 20:26

And this is what in lies the problem. The media per sey don't know about Nintendogs, DDR, Final Fantasy, Kamanary Damancy, and the like. So they go after the main top selling game that has violence like GTA. This in turn gives the media higher ratings for their TV shows, news channels, and newspapers. Why would the media talk about 'safe' games? The media reports things that are 'wrong'. The idea, in theory, is educating people about things they ought to be aware of and make decisions over. Okay, these days one's inclined to think they'll write whatever will sell papers or get viewers. But in principle why would the news talk about Mario or Ico? There's nothing there the public needs to be aware of. Whereas if there's 'dangerous mind-corrupting games that turn children into psychos' then that is something the public needs be aware of, no? Like, there's no reports of 'it's safe to keep chickens' on the daily news. The only time we hear about chickens is when they become dangerous because of bird flu. And we don't hear day to day about how our politicans are behaving themselves and dealing fairly with people. The only time politicians are mentioned is with reports of corruption or incompetance. If news is to cover things people need to know then it makes sense only to talk about dangerous or disagreeable things (though personally I feel the news ought to present a balanced view of what society is like, rather than what's just wrong with it). And that means talking about the 'wrong games that need to be banned' without talking about the 'right games that are harmless entertainment' which nongamers have no interest in.

BTW mods : Does this discussion belong in this forum? It's not really related to console hardare or business per se. It's more an RPSC topic topic that happens to be pertaining to gaming, but the principles at the heart of the matter cover all and sundry entertainments. Certainly the debate doesn't involve any discussion of hardware techniques, console costs or game disc formats.

mckmas8808

05-Nov-2005, 20:48

Shifty thanks for proving my point. *hears clapping from thousands of people*
The fact that the media only catches and reports the negative things basically means that the people are not getting a true representation of what's the true reality. For instance if a news program reported that 50 people dropped out of a certain high school and gave the impression that the high school is bad and didn't care about it's students people would be shocked and mad.

Yet being that the news media didn't report that 500 people graduated that same year and are going to college the people aren't getting the full represention of the high school. Point blank if the media is allowed to focus only on the violent games then of course videogames today would seem only violent to ill-informed people like Scott_Arm.

That to me is the problem. If they are giving us a story they should give us all the facts, so that the everyday person should form their own opinion.

Why would the media talk about 'safe' games?

To give parents a good idea of what games to buy their kids, grandchildren, neices, and nephews for Christmas. It's the big holiday season right? Like 50% or something like that of games is sold during this time right? Shouldn't the news programs and newspapers have a show, article, or segment about what non-violent games to buy for underaged kids?

Shifty Geezer

05-Nov-2005, 20:59

mckmas8808

05-Nov-2005, 21:30

Well unless they want to give shopping advice for everything else too, I wouldn't have thought it's their responsibility. There'll be specialist press for prents wanting to look up games. If the news were to cover 'nice things' they'd have to give recipe suggestions and book suggestions and fashion tips, and News24 would become a non-stop daytime TV magazine programme :shock:

So why is it their responsibility to tell parents that GTA is super violent? Shouldn't the parent know that when they pick up the freaking box and see the 'M' Mature rating? Then if these stupid parents where to flip the little thin box over they would notice it says

Blood and Gore
Intense Violence
Strong Language
Strong Sexual Content
Use of Drugs

They ESRB has already told them what's in the game so why should the media feel it's their responsibility to do what the ESRB has already done?

According to your theory shouldn't the media also talk negatively about movies like Saw II and Bad Boys II?

Scott_Arm

05-Nov-2005, 21:34

Don't take this analogy the wrong way Scott but you are like a White person that is racist toward black people, yet that didn't even met one before. Meaning that you really can't speak apon something that you don't have enough knowledge of.

Well, it's not really the same because I've been playing games for 20 years on everything from Atari and Commodore64 all the way up until recent consoles like the Gamecube, PS2 and Xbox. So, I do have knowledge of games on pretty much just about every single gaming system that's been available since the early 80s. I'm just not a hardcore gamer in that I don't know every single title that's being released on every single system because there are more systems than I care to keep track of. I know about games like DDR and Nintendogs and sports games and racing games. There are just heaps of violent games and those are the ones that get the big splash pages on IGN and Gamespy and whatever other game sites I check out. I'm in no way scared of violent games. I play them all the time. I just got through playing FEAR for a couple hours. I just think the majority of quality titles I see in the shops and written up on gaming websites are the violent games. The only news I watch is the CBC and the BCC, and they don't bother talking about video games at all, unless it's in the tech business reporting. If there is a balance of non-violent games available, it's the industries fault for not promoting them or supporting them equally. You can't blame the media for anything.

mckmas8808

05-Nov-2005, 21:40

If there is a balance of non-violent games available, it's the industries fault for not promoting them or supporting them equally. You can't blame the media for anything.

See that's the problem. There is a balance of non-violent games available. Sony has proved that everyday platform games like the Jak and Daxter series can sell great and have big promotion. Nintendo has already proved that every game doesn't have to big about blood, guts, and cursing. Why Scott do you act as if Nintendo doesn't exist?

Disclaimer: I know I may come off as hard and harsh but the question above is entirely honest and respectable. Please do not take it in any other way. Thanks.

Scott_Arm

05-Nov-2005, 21:44

See that's the problem. There is a balance of non-violent games available. Sony has proved that everyday platform games like the Jak and Daxter series can sell great and have big promotion. Nintendo has already proved that every game doesn't have to big about blood, guts, and cursing. Why Scott do you act as if Nintendo doesn't exist?

Disclaimer: I know I may come off as hard and harsh but the question above is entirely honest and respectable. Please do not take it in any other way. Thanks.

I know Nintendo still exists. I own a Gamecube. I bought it for Zelda, RE4, Fight Night Round 2 and Metroid.

When I walk into a store, Nintendo always has the smallest shelf space of every system, and they seem to be the only seem that offers more family oriented gaming. And a game does not have to have blood, guts or cursing to be violent.

Shifty Geezer

05-Nov-2005, 22:53

According to your theory shouldn't the media also talk negatively about movies like Saw II and Bad Boys II?They have done. Each time there's a new murder or whatever and there seems to be a link with media influence, the media revists the question of whether these entertainments really are suitable or not. And no answer is found, no agreement reached, and the considerations are forgotten when the next breaking news item questions other facets of society, until such time as these issues resurface.
They ESRB has already told them what's in the game so why should the media feel it's their responsibility to do what the ESRB has already done?The media's not telling parent's what's in a game. It's addressing the issues at large. A label is stuck on the front of the box, yet the game still finds it's way into the hands of kids, say. Hence the media asks the questions (which is what investigative journalism is all about) 'how has this happened, is it bad, what can be done to stop it?' Which is right and proper I think, if there's a public concern over a matter (though the public are concerned over whatever the media feeds them more often then not), for journalists to ask questions. Like phone mast and children with mobile phones, every once in a while a news report breaks over new evidence for/against these being harmful. The ESRB labels and the news coverage are two different things entirely. One's informing people of content and the others questioning the rights and wrong of content and accessibility and responsibility.

Dr Evil

05-Nov-2005, 23:52

aren't violent/bloody/gory games usualy toned down for european release?

I think that's mainly in Germany, sometimes it works otherway around for example Indigo Prophecy US-version is censored.

Gubbi

06-Nov-2005, 00:46

Gubbi

06-Nov-2005, 00:56

Sean Baby sums up my feelings on this topic in this gem (http://www.seanbaby.com/news/col-lawsuit.htm) from 2001.

Cheers
Gubbi

Brodda Thep

06-Nov-2005, 01:04

mckmas8808

06-Nov-2005, 04:34

You realize that this is showing a decrease in violent crimes since 2000, don't you?

And don't you see a bigger drop since 2001?

mckmas8808

06-Nov-2005, 08:30

Guitar Hero has recieved 9s and 10s from darn near every review site on the internet. This games proves exactly my point that there are more great games out there that are not violent. Check it out at IGN below.

http://ps2.ign.com/articles/663/663674p1.html

Shifty Geezer

06-Nov-2005, 09:22

Violent crime involving firearms has plummeted since 1993 (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm), the year the original Doom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom) was released.Except in many other countries. Is the Edinburgh that's now the gun-crime captial of Europe? With gang culture appearing in many other cities.

I've already explained why a change in crime rate can't be attributed solely to the games being released as there's other factors involved. The question is, even with violent crimes dropping in some area, what impact has gaming had? If violent games hadn't been around, would the crime-rate have dropped more, less, or had no change?

StefanS

06-Nov-2005, 10:31

Violent crime involving firearms has plummeted since 1993 (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm), the year the original Doom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom) was released.

Coincidence?

I THINK NOT

Cheers

That has a lot more to do with Wade vs. Roe than Doom. There's even a study on it by Steven D. Levitt. The more popular scientific version can be found in his book "Freakonomics".

Blade

06-Nov-2005, 14:01

This debate has gotten out of control. :)

I think the bottom line is that Spector feels that it's sad that one of the most innovative and most imitated series of the past 8 years (GTA1 to now) is not really accessible to the entire gaming world. The only way that younger gamers can get any of that great gameplay without eroding their impressionable minds is to play an E/T-rated GTA knock-off.. that's obviously not going to be of the same quality as San Andreas.

He feels that it's sad that the most popular game series of the past 4 years (GTA3-) is popular because of the countless crimes it allows you to commit.

The utter moral void of what the games allow you to do and what is contained within. Mr.Spector himself is somewhat guilty of this, having fostered the "violent" Deus Ex.. another of the best games this side of 1999. Then again, his game can be completed without killing anybody.

I guess he's been spoiled by companies like Nintendo (yes, here we go.. :)) that know how to produce brilliant gameplay experiences with minimal humanoid violence. Yes, you might slash an evil flower in Zelda or trounce a mushroom in Super Mario Bros.. but whenever a humanoid character is slain.. he/she just takes a bouncy beating and then returns for the sequel. They don't take a dirt nap, covered in shit, inside a port-a-potty covered in concrete cement.

Games like Pikmin, Katimari Damacy, and Guitar Hero bring forth innovation without resorting to cheap thrills like sex, violence, drugs, and.. flatulence.

I own every GTA save Liberty City Stories and the GTA:London mission pack.. but I see what he means.

mckmas8808

06-Nov-2005, 14:35

He feels that it's sad that the most popular game series of the past 4 years (GTA3-) is popular because of the countless crimes it allows you to commit.

I see what he means too and even I have 4 GTA games. But that statement above if that is what he really meant is horribly wrong. The game is great due to more factors than just countless crimes. It has a great storyline, presentation, music, sense of scale, voice-overs, and livelyness to it. Other knock offs can't get it right because they miss most of those great things I just named. They just add the countless crimes and think it's going to sell.

Blade

06-Nov-2005, 16:29

fearsomepirate

07-Nov-2005, 14:31

True, I agree.

It's just that.. a lot of other games have those things too. All of those aspects, even. They haven't been as commercially successful (and thus haven't spawned as many imitators) however, because let's be frank: the "mature" aspects of GTA are what have propelled it to where it is.

WS isn't bashing the game, he just wishes that it didn't stew in amoral/immoral juices.

And on that note, I felt like the first Deus Ex (never played IW) really brought out some interesting moral issues (like bioethics) and made you think about "what-if" type future scenarios as well as your actions. I've only played GTA: VC, but I never got anything remotely like that from those games. Some games encourage you to think about all facets of your actions and the story. Most games don't. Can anyone else think of any games that are more than just some sort of twitch-fest or wanton, mindless destruction? Deus Ex, Torment, Fallout, and Shadow of the Colossus are some of the games I'm thinking of that really make your actions feel meaningful. The Zelda and Metroid series come to mind as games that are more about exploration and interaction than killing. And then of course, you have story-driven Japanese RPGs as well.

Powderkeg

07-Nov-2005, 14:40

This whole "violence in video gaming is bad and out of control" sure sounds a lot like "rock and roll is the devil's music" rhetoric to me.

london-boy

07-Nov-2005, 14:46

This whole "violence in video gaming is bad and out of control" sure sounds a lot like "rock and roll is the devil's music" rhetoric to me.

I thought Britney Hillary Love Hewitt Pop was Devil's music.

Powderkeg

07-Nov-2005, 14:58

I thought Britney Hillary Love Hewitt Pop was Devil's music.

It is, but we don't blame crime on them, just stupidity.

london-boy

07-Nov-2005, 14:59

It is, but we don't blame crime on them, just stupidity.

The world is going backwards isn't it. It's the Britney's of the world that need to be burnt. Like witches.

Get rid of the hookers and there will be no hookers to shag and kill in GTA games: No complaints!!!

I should run for president.

mckmas8808

07-Nov-2005, 16:48

The world is going backwards isn't it. It's the Britney's of the world that need to be burnt. Like witches.

Get rid of the hookers and there will be no hookers to shag and kill in GTA games: No complaints!!!

I should run for president.

Yes, Yes forget Pedro. Vote 4 London-boy! :grin:

Fox5

09-Nov-2005, 03:07

I don't think he necessarily wants to change GTA. He just wants Rockstar to apply the same open-ended gameplay concepts to a game with a more family-safe theme.

It was called Body Harvest and Space Station Silicon Valley, and the technology and abilities of the designers just weren't there yet. And the games sold poorly, while the offensive GTA games sold well. Combine failed innovation with a winning formula, and enter the modern GTA.

BTW, what ever happened to that game Picasso?

chroniceyestrain

10-Nov-2005, 02:38

Warren Spector clarifies http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/deusexinvisiblewar/news.html?sid=6139443

Gubbi

10-Nov-2005, 08:23

Warren Spector clarifies http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/deusexinvisiblewar/news.html?sid=6139443

Wouldn't it be nice if people as talented as the folks who made GTA would devote those talents to something that wasn't so easily misinterpreted and so easily vilified by politicians, moralists and other cultural gatekeepers?

Is like asking

Wouldn't it be nice if Quentin Tarantino would devote his talents to something more acceptable by the main stream and not make a movie about a bunch of gangsters, like do a remake of "Honey, I shrunk the kids"?

The answer is no.

Cheers

Platon

10-Nov-2005, 08:25

Warren Spector clarifies http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/deusexinvisiblewar/news.html?sid=6139443

Poor guy. Actually when I read the first time his initial comments I though that those could be used in one of those anti-game campains, and what do you know, they did, I wonder why I am still suprized though...

Platon

10-Nov-2005, 08:30

Is like asking

Wouldn't it be nice if Quentin Tarantino would devote his talents to something more acceptable by the main stream and not make a movie about a bunch of gangsters, like do a remake of "Honey, I shrunk the kids".

The answer is no.

Cheers

Well as he said he isn't really giving any answers, he wants a discussion going on and stir up things, which is a good thing, because to me it seems game development has really started going into one track way of thought. And the thing here is that the "Tarantino kind" of games are the mainstream "Honey, I shrunk the kids" are the exception...

Inane_Dork

10-Nov-2005, 09:44

Wouldn't it be nice if Quentin Tarantino would devote his talents to something more acceptable by the main stream and not make a movie about a bunch of gangsters, like do a remake of "Honey, I shrunk the kids"?

The answer is no.No, that's not analogous to Spector's question.

You're confusing changing the subject matter with dumbing the subject matter. You deliberately picked a banal, uninspired movie as the one to change to. Well, given Kill Bill and Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, I too would pick Kill Bill. But that's not the choice. The choice would be more like Pulp Fiction or The Muppet Movie. Both are excellent in their own right and to their own audiences, but the latter's content is acceptable to more people.

I think it's true that the more "family friendly" games (and movies) get, the less cutting edge the production is. For every The Incredibles, there's 5+ Sin Cities. It seems as though the genre is used as an excuse to sweep quality under the rug, which is a bummer.

Gubbi

10-Nov-2005, 10:25

You're confusing changing the subject matter with dumbing the subject matter. You deliberately picked a banal, uninspired movie as the one to change to. Well, given Kill Bill and Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, I too would pick Kill Bill. But that's not the choice. The choice would be more like Pulp Fiction or The Muppet Movie. Both are excellent in their own right and to their own audiences, but the latter's content is acceptable to more people.

I'm not confusing anything at all. I picked a harmless family movie, and a box office hit at that, and compared to another box office hit.

But to play your game: would you rather have Tarantino instruct "The Muppet Movie 2" or "the Vega Brothers" ?

Cheers

Gubbi

10-Nov-2005, 10:33

I think it's true that the more "family friendly" games (and movies) get, the less cutting edge the production is. For every The Incredibles, there's 5+ Sin Cities. It seems as though the genre is used as an excuse to sweep quality under the rug, which is a bummer.

Ok, we're never going to agree. The Incredibles was a boring, predictable and very well animated movie, the best thing about going to the theater to watch it was the short film shown first with the singing+dancing sheep.

Whereas Sin City was totally uncompromising in it's grit. Loving both Rodriguez and Frank Miller I had very high expectations going in to see this movie, and I wasn't disapointed.

Cheers

london-boy

10-Nov-2005, 10:44

Ok, we're never going to agree. The Incredibles was a boring, predictable and very well animated movie, the best thing about going to the theater to watch it was the short film shown first with the singing+dancing sheep.

Whereas Sin City was totally uncompromising in it's grit. Loving both Rodriguez and Frank Miller I had very high expectations going in to see this movie, and I wasn't disapointed.

Cheers

BLASPHEMY!!!
OK so Finding Nemo was much better, more hilarious, and just a more complete story, but damn Finding Nemo was also one of the best things made in the last few years. One can't expect Pixar to keep up with and surpass every release.
The Incredibles still had his few moments of genius, although i do feel it was a bit subdued (is that how you spell that?!) at times.

Gubbi

10-Nov-2005, 10:50

BLASPHEMY!!!

Hey I love Nemo and Monster's Inc as much as the next guy. Which is why Incredibles felt like such a let down.

Cheers

london-boy

10-Nov-2005, 11:06

[deja-vu]

I agree, but The Incredibles just had a lot to live up to. Nemo was just something else.

[/deja-vu]

.Melchiah.

10-Nov-2005, 13:13

In today's world if you don't like violent games you are really getting the short end of the stick because not as much effort(as a whole) goes into these games anymore. Which is a stark contrast to the 16bit and 32bit days. Although Nintendo is still holding it down, why can't other companies branch out and put in the same amount of time and money that they put into their violent games?

8-bit & 16-bit violence and debauchery:

Commodore 64:
Deathwish
Nemesis the Warlock
Friday the 13th
Commando Libya
How to be a Complete Bastard

Amiga 500:
Barbarian I & II
Operation Wolf
Elvira - Mistress of the Dark
Lurking Horror
Leather Goddesses of Phobos

london-boy

10-Nov-2005, 13:20

Yes. There have always been violent games. Only today games look much better than they used to, therefore the hit on our conscience is bigger. When we see something that looks fairly close to reality - or even stylised, but with enough detail to leave no space to the imagination - we are shocked much more than if we see a bunch of squares that are supposed to look like blood and we only process that image as "blood" because we "know" it's blood, from the context, not because it looks real.
And things will keep improving visually, till the day when we will kill and beat to a pulp someone who looks real on our screens. Obviously complaints are bound to increase.

Gubbi

10-Nov-2005, 13:36

Amiga 500:
<snip>
Leather Goddesses of Phobos

When we see something that looks fairly close to reality - or even stylised, but with enough detail to leave no space to the imagination

Don't know the above game, but from the title alone I'd love to see a Leather Goddesses of Phobos "with enough detail to leave no space to the imagination" next gen :D

Cheers

Shifty Geezer

10-Nov-2005, 13:38

Human brains are pretty simplistic in assuming what they see is real. People react to what they see, or at least appear to see, instead of what it is. A lot of people left the cinema feeling really spooked having watched The Blair Witch Project. They reacted emotionally to what looked like spooky woods and wierd witchcraftery, despite having watched a few kids with a camcorder making a film. And interestingly enough the reason this film was so realistic was the response of the 'actors' who were feeling scared despite knowing that everything going on around them was just a film crew pretending to be spooky things of the night. Any film that ellicits an emotional response is managing to get a reaction from viewers based on what appears to be, instead of what really is.

When people can interact with games that look very lifelike, which we're starting to hit now, the closeness in representation to the real world is going to go straight to the centre of people's perceptions. And the difference between games and films is games involve your actions. When instead of watching someone else knife a character in a film, the player has to knife the person, and the brain sees it happening as though it's real...it's going to be making impressions.

This wasn't a concern in the past as violent computer games were pixelated messes which were very distant from reality. In future, the near future even, the pschological impact of realistic virtual scenarios will likely get very pronounced.

london-boy

10-Nov-2005, 13:42

Don't know the above game, but from the title alone I'd love to see a Leather Goddesses of Phobos "with enough detail to leave no space to the imagination" next gen :D

Cheers

:lol: :lol: I missed that one!! ROFL!!

Blade

10-Nov-2005, 14:01

Y'know, I can't help but agree with WS again in his clarification.

Remember, this is coming from a guy whose favorite genre is arguably the FPS! (me, not.. well, him too I guess)

There's a stigma among the mainstream gaming crowd (largely teenagers) that suggests colorful, dare I say cutesy games don't have a place because they're for children. Gamers that disregard Nintendo, for instance, claiming that they'll only buy a GameCube so "my baby daughter will have a console to play".. these people.

They're not just for children, largely. Certainly not the ones from Nintendo, Sega, Capcom, Rare, Sony.. those who innovate with quality software.. exciting the gamer in all of us. While using a more cartoony art style, no less.. and while aiming for a broad demographic. They deserve respect.

The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker doesn't deserve some little jerk at GameStop telling me that it's a kids' game. Kameo: Elements of Power doesn't deserve to be written off because it's got all of the colors of the rainbow and not a whole lot of controversy.

Developers can make whatever games they want, but I agree that Rockstar has shown limited scope by making themselves a one-trick pony of violence and sex. What do I say? Keep making great games like GTA:SA, but remember the magic of Space Station Silicon Valley and for crying out loud.. let the kids play your games for once. Generate appeal in more than one market, and if you're going to make adult games.. don't make them all about illegal activities. It's immature and over time has gotten annoying, especially since most of Rockstar's non-GTA titles have been mediocre cash-ins on the idea. Manhunt, anyone? State of Emergency was published under the Rockstar label.

BTW, The Incredibles was great IMHO. Almost as good as Finding Nemo.. although, maybe I have more of a fondness towards it because of all of the comic book references tossed in. i.e. How they passed the "Keane Act" to shut down the heroes for no reason. Of course, the villains were shut down too.. :)

Gubbi

10-Nov-2005, 14:25

london-boy

10-Nov-2005, 14:30

People always have to victimise and pick on one single person (or company) doing what many other people are doing.

Look at the whole Kate Moss "scandal"... It's ridiculous to think that probably all the so-called "journalists" ruining her life went to parties that weekend and took vast amounts of coke themselves, if not other kinds of "recreational drugs" one can do quite freely in London. Everyone does it, but it's "big news" when everyone teams up to take down the designated scapegoat and target sales for the "good" middle class.

Hypocrisy at its best.

Powderkeg

10-Nov-2005, 14:54

But picking on Rockstar is just so lame.

They are being singled out because they produced a hugely succesful game, that then got copied again and again.

Did you even read what he said? Any of it?

He singled out Rockstar because they made a great game but it's content wasn't suitable for showing off that greatness to non-gamers.

That's all he said, and it's not worth getting your blood pressure raised over.

Platon

10-Nov-2005, 14:59

But picking on Rockstar is just so lame.

They are being singled out because they produced a hugely succesful game, that then got copied again and again. Blame the copy cats and not the original inventors.

And Blade, calling them one trick ponys is also really lame. GTA and GTA 2 weren't that hot (2D scrollers have limited appeal), but when then they hit the big time with GTA 3 they should suddenly abbandon their franchise? That would be like asking Nintendo to abandon Mario.

So Spector singling out Rockstar is lame lame l.a.m.e.

Cheers

Well, being the most most successfull franchise around makes that to you and well they were the first ones to start this trend. But still I would say he is using them as an example to critisize the industry as a whole, and it s quite easy to understand why they are the best example around...

cam

10-Nov-2005, 15:44

I don’t think Specter understands that GTA doesn’t force you to mow people down or commit mass murders, it just allows the player the freedom to do so, and coming from someone who’s last two games contained many toys to commit such acts of violence is pretty rich, sure you didn’t have too kill, but it gave players the same freedom to do so GTA did

His rant is almost as bad as people blaming doom after certain school shootings, it’s a single narrow vision that ignores everything else around it, instead of moaning about a hugely selling game, maybe try singling out some developers for praise, that are trying to advance the genre like ico and maybe generate some sales and interest.

Gubbi

10-Nov-2005, 16:12

Did you even read what he said? Any of it?

He singled out Rockstar because they made a great game but it's content wasn't suitable for showing off that greatness to non-gamers.

That's all he said, and it's not worth getting your blood pressure raised over.

I'm calm, I'm calm.

He toned it down a bit, but he still said:

You don't think the GTA team could rock hard on something that didn't involve criminal behavior? Wouldn't you love to see them try?....
<snip>

To which I said no. It's like loving to see Tarantino make a Muppet movie.

Cheers

Powderkeg

10-Nov-2005, 16:28

To which I said no. It's like loving to see Tarantino make a Muppet movie.

Cheers

I disagree. You can have something that isn't over-the-top criminal and yet still be compelling and adult in nature.

Fox5

10-Nov-2005, 16:31

I'm calm, I'm calm.

He toned it down a bit, but he still said:

To which I said no. It's like loving to see Tarantino make a Muppet movie.

Cheers

I already pointed out that the GTA team made two non-gangster games in the GTA 3d mold, Body Harvest and Space Station Silicon Valley.
They bombed, whereas the GTA games have been some of the best selling games of all times, and opened gaming up to a much larger audience.

Blade

10-Nov-2005, 16:59

You can have something that isn't over-the-top criminal and yet still be compelling and adult in nature.

Exactly. I wouldn't go as far to say as Rockstar should produce such a game, but y'know.. I think they will. Eventually.

I already pointed out that the GTA team made two non-gangster games in the GTA 3d mold, Body Harvest and Space Station Silicon Valley.

DMA/Rockstar have made plenty of games and nobody's faulting them.

I recall BH and SSSV being on the N64, though. N64 = mucho success for 3rd-parties. *rolls eyes*

They bombed

Content-wise or sales-wise? See above line about "mucho success."

whereas the GTA games have been some of the best selling games of all time

From a marketing standpoint, it makes sense. It just hurts me inside that equally good or better games achieve a tiny fraction of the sales (and thus don't get sequelled) because "YO THIS GAME GOT HOOKERS AND YOU CAN RUN OVAR PEEPS WITH A BUS AND SHOOT UP SOME HAITIANS WHO SAY THE F WORD"..

and opened gaming up to a much larger audience.

See above. I hope that this "much larger audience" of yours can wrap their head around games without the elements of GTA. I know a lot of friends that play just GTA, and these are the people you're referring to. Not many of them got more than halfway through VC or SA's missions, though. That says something.

I guess some of us are having that "veteran" feeling. Like, the "I've been gaming since the 80's and I've enjoyed countless experiences in almost every genre and only now do you folks finally appreciate my hobby because you can steal cars and buy strip clubs in it"...

I mean, it's not like GTA:VC was the first game ever to have high production value and professional voice acting to bring in this bigger audience..

Anybody get that vibe?

mckmas8808

10-Nov-2005, 17:40

See above. I hope that this "much larger audience" of yours can wrap their head around games without the elements of GTA. I know a lot of friends that play just GTA, and these are the people you're referring to. Not many of them got more than halfway through VC or SA's missions, though. That says something.

Well that's not R*'s fault. It's good actually that some people are playing the game that whom wouldn't play games or buy videogames systems.

london-boy

10-Nov-2005, 17:44

Well that's not R*'s fault. It's good actually that some people are playing the game that whom wouldn't play games or buy videogames systems.

:shock: @ "that whom"

The GTA series sold a lot because they appealed to an adult audience, sure, but let's not forget that its audience was probably mostly made by teenagers who shouldn't even be playing the game due to age restrictions.

mckmas8808

10-Nov-2005, 17:46

:shock:

The GTA series sold a lot because they appealed to an adult audience, sure, but let's not forget that its audience was probably mostly made by teenagers who shouldn't even be playing the game due to age restrictions.

Again not Rockstars fault. I'm pretty sure that the Matrix had a thick audience of people that were under the age a 17 too. Point being if the parents buy it for the kids that's something R* can't change.

Blade

10-Nov-2005, 18:02

I don't want Rockstar to change it. I was just replying to the comment about "a larger audience" and why GTA is successful.

The gameplay is pretty good, the amount of content is great. On these merits alone, every GTA game should be a million-seller.

Of course, we know that's not why it's sold so well and has gotten so much mainstream press. (most of it bad press)

.Melchiah.

10-Nov-2005, 19:06

Don't know the above game, but from the title alone I'd love to see a Leather Goddesses of Phobos "with enough detail to leave no space to the imagination" next gen :D

Cheers

That was actually a game based purely on text and audio (the same applies to Lurking Horror).

Leather Goddesses of Phobos came also with few bags which you were supposed to open in certain sections of the game. For example, you are in a sewer area, open the bag and voilá, it also smells like sewer!

Powderkeg

10-Nov-2005, 19:39

How about an 'I, Robot' (Book, not the crappy movie) based game using GTA's basic gameplay.

Blade

10-Nov-2005, 20:27

Leather Goddesses of Phobos came also with few bags which you were supposed to open in certain sections of the game. For example, you are in a sewer area, open the bag and voilá, it also smells like sewer!

Decades ahead of its time. (not) :)

Inane_Dork

10-Nov-2005, 20:50

I'm not confusing anything at all. I picked a harmless family movie, and a box office hit at that, and compared to another box office hit.Again, you miss the point. It's not about popularity, it's about quality. You can push the artform without pushing the rating system. Honey, I Shrunk the Kids does not really push the artform.

Or, maybe, consider Napoleon Dynamite. Not all like it, but it makes its own way without lots of swearing and off color jokes.

But to play your game: would you rather have Tarantino instruct "The Muppet Movie 2" or "the Vega Brothers" ?You miss the point yet again. It's not which I would rather him do, but wouldn't I like to see what a Tarantino directed The Muppet Movie 2 would be. And the answer is yes, I would like to see that. Which movie I'd rather him do is another question.

Ok, we're never going to agree. The Incredibles was a boring, predictable and very well animated movie, the best thing about going to the theater to watch it was the short film shown first with the singing+dancing sheep.

Whereas Sin City was totally uncompromising in it's grit. Loving both Rodriguez and Frank Miller I had very high expectations going in to see this movie, and I wasn't disapointed.We're never going to agree because you don't like my example? Please, you're smarter than that.

So Spector singling out Rockstar is lame lame l.a.m.e.Spector singled them out because their popularity makes a better reference in a speech and because they do show great game design, unlike the knock-offs. Why would he single out True Crime? That game has major issues just trying to be what it should, let alone changing what it should be. No, GTA is the only series that makes any sense to use as an example.

And I'm pretty sure people are not asking Rockstar to dump GTA. They're asking for a tangent, a parallel to GTA.

Fox5

10-Nov-2005, 21:15

Again, you miss the point. It's not about popularity, it's about quality. You can push the artform without pushing the rating system. Honey, I Shrunk the Kids does not really push the artform.

Or, maybe, consider Napoleon Dynamite. Not all like it, but it makes its own way without lots of swearing and off color jokes.

You miss the point yet again. It's not which I would rather him do, but wouldn't I like to see what a Tarantino directed The Muppet Movie 2 would be. And the answer is yes, I would like to see that. Which movie I'd rather him do is another question.

We're never going to agree because you don't like my example? Please, you're smarter than that.

Spector singled them out because their popularity makes a better reference in a speech and because they do show great game design, unlike the knock-offs. Why would he single out True Crime? That game has major issues just trying to be what it should, let alone changing what it should be. No, GTA is the only series that makes any sense to use as an example.

And I'm pretty sure people are not asking Rockstar to dump GTA. They're asking for a tangent, a parallel to GTA.

Tangents are parallel now?

Shifty Geezer

10-Nov-2005, 21:29

Tangents are parallel now?Sure, in nth dimensional space :mrgreen:

Powderkeg

10-Nov-2005, 21:53

Tangents are parallel now?

Only if you have 2 of them that end up going in the same direction.

Inane_Dork

10-Nov-2005, 22:04

Tangents are parallel now?:p
----------------
\
\
\
------------More like that.

mckmas8808

10-Nov-2005, 23:42

And I'm pretty sure people are not asking Rockstar to dump GTA. They're asking for a tangent, a parallel to GTA.

I see, but isn't that asking a lot from a developer. To say, "ok why know you can make a GTA game a million dollar seller. But can you now make a game similar just with out all the killing, swearing, sex, blood, and violent overtone."

That's asking a bit much. Haven't they been making GTA games for like 8 years? To just jump up a make a game like it but 'E' or 'T' rated and make it sell a million is asking a lot.

Blade

11-Nov-2005, 04:12

Which is why that is a flawed argument and why I've slowly abandoned it over the course of this thread. :)

Powderkeg

11-Nov-2005, 04:19

I see, but isn't that asking a lot from a developer. To say, "ok why know you can make a GTA game a million dollar seller. But can you now make a game similar just with out all the killing, swearing, sex, blood, and violent overtone."

Who said anything about getting rid of it completely? Just repackage it in a context that is more widely acceptable.

To use an analogy, Saving Private Ryan is so widely accepted that they show it on broadcast networks uncesored. It's not the content so much as the context.

Inane_Dork

11-Nov-2005, 04:31

That's asking a bit much. Haven't they been making GTA games for like 8 years? To just jump up a make a game like it but 'E' or 'T' rated and make it sell a million is asking a lot.Possibly. I don't really see why making 'M' rated games makes you incapable or inefficient at making 'E' rated games. They just need the right idea or concept to go with.

emacs

11-Nov-2005, 04:59

Who said anything about getting rid of it completely? Just repackage it in a context that is more widely acceptable ... It's not the content so much as the context.
the context is you not being part of the law-abiding populace; the franchise is called Grand Theft Auto for a reason ;-)

Powderkeg

11-Nov-2005, 06:41

the context is you not being part of the law-abiding populace; the franchise is called Grand Theft Auto for a reason ;-)

Yes we all agree with that.

The question is could they make a different game with the same gameplay mechanics but presented in a different context?

mckmas8808

11-Nov-2005, 06:57

Yes we all agree with that.

The question is could they make a different game with the same gameplay mechanics but presented in a different context?

Yes if they want too. We shouldn't hold our breaths for it though. And we shouldn't expect them to do a soft game. If they do they do, if they don't they don't.

Crusher

11-Nov-2005, 07:13

I'm someone who was skeptical about the entertainment value of GTA:SA at first (having never played a GTA game before). I have now finished the game, and I have continued playing it long finishing the main story. My opinion is that the only thing Rockstar can be accused of is giving the player the freedom to do things that some uptight conservatives don't think people should be able to do. They relaxed the rules to make the game more realistic, and they're being criticized for it by people who want every game to have "OMG J00 KILLED INNOCENT!#% GAME OVAR!!!!" gameplay (if killing is even allowed).

Shifty Geezer

11-Nov-2005, 10:39

I see, but isn't that asking a lot from a developer. To say, "ok why know you can make a GTA game a million dollar seller. But can you now make a game similar just with out all the killing, swearing, sex, blood, and violent overtone."

That's asking a bit much. Haven't they been making GTA games for like 8 years? To just jump up a make a game like it but 'E' or 'T' rated and make it sell a million is asking a lot.Unfortunately you might be right. There's little real creativity in the mainstream media industry. Writers in all categories know to chuck violence, sex, etc. into a product with little imagination, overused plots, and cut-out by-the-numbers characters, to produce something that interests without having any real quality. Banning this sort of content would cause a massive drop in the amount of media content out there.

But I think it'd work like adverts. In the UK the advertising board kept banning advertisers from certain things, and the advertisers found clever alternatives that were actually more effective. At the moments every other advert is promoting sex. Whether it's deoderant, shampoo or Stairlifts, advertisers would have us believe from the noises the women make that using their products gives orgasmic pleasure :roll: If the ad board banned this, we might get some decent interesting adverts back again.

I'm sure many writers instantly think 'let's add sex, violence and everything else to appeal to people' but if they weren't allowed to, they find alternatives. And in all honesty, do you think it impossible for people to live happy, worthwhile and fulfilling lives without violence etc.? If by some amazing stroke of fortitude people had never engaged in war or thuggery and no-one ever even thought of these things, would we be living in a world without computer games? If GTA and similar games had never been invented what would all those who play those games be doing? Sitting around doing nothing waiting for someone to write a violent computer game? Or doing something else without missing the product that was never invented? If we hadn't stopped watching Roman Circuses, would we ever have invented Football? Both satisfy a need for entertainment, only one doesn't need bloodlust to be enjoyable (though some might say English league football can be just as violent at times!).

I don't think writers/media creators will be as willing to try new things as long as they have their generic, reliable staples to fall back on. Take that away, and force them to change, I'm sure we'd see huge shakeups of gameplay, storyline, and intellectual worth as laternative entertainments are found.