I think part of the problem here is a failure to account for human development.

If a 16 year old kid is in a position where playing GTA could lead him to shoot other drivers out the window of his car, then it's already too late. Playing GTA at 16 isn't his problem; it's the 16 prior, irrecoverable, unchangeable years wherein his upbringing failed to prepare him to be exposed to GTA. A game may well be the trigger, the proverbial straw breaking the camel's back, but the game isn't the cause. The game is merely uncloaking something that has already been a problem, and honestly needed to be addressed 10 years ago.

Exactly

Plus

16 year olds maybe hard to control and telling them they can't play GTA difficult but it should still be done. Again the 18 cert is there for a reason!

Also as a side note:

My ex-girlfriends Dad bought her 6 year old brother the last GTA for the PS2. Even though it had an 18 cert! Parents don't have a clue, they think computer games are toys. They don't understand the level of maturity or complexity of modern games. Most have never played a game in their lives. But it will soon be the turn of 1st generation gamers to become parents and they will be more aware.

[my ex gave me the copy of GTA, she was a little more aware. 1 upside to that story LOL]

I think it's interesting that this thread is right next to the "Virtual Pimp" thread.

Quote:

Original post by Way Walker I think it's interesting that this thread is right next to the "Virtual Pimp" thread.

I thought about the exact same thing, actually.

I'm still sticking to my opinion that these games are a problem. Actually, come to remember it there was an episode of CSI where there was a game developer who created a violent game similar to Grand Theft Auto and the criminals in question where the young gamers who played the game and got warped by it and started going out robbing banks and killing people to "gain points". Of course, that was completely made up since it's just a television drama and media such as that can exaggerate such things, but don't you get the point?

I'm in agreement that a game can be a triggering event. So is there someway to incorporate into the game a "don't try this at home" message without it coming across as "preachy"?

Quote:

Original post by Falkon Valkyrie Quote: Original post by Way Walker I think it's interesting that this thread is right next to the "Virtual Pimp" thread. I thought about the exact same thing, actually. I'm still sticking to my opinion that these games are a problem. Actually, come to remember it there was an episode of CSI where there was a game developer who created a violent game similar to Grand Theft Auto and the criminals in question where the young gamers who played the game and got warped by it and started going out robbing banks and killing people to "gain points". Of course, that was completely made up since it's just a television drama and media such as that can exaggerate such things, but don't you get the point?

I think you misunderstand. I don't think these games are appropriate, either. Most of GTA was all right. The shooting and getting chased by cops (I'm only familiar at all with the first incarnation of GTA III) was amusing like the scene in Blues Brothers. However, some parts (discussed earlier) did go a little too far. And I think there's a big difference between the parody found in the Leisure Suit Larry series and in the "parody" found in Virtual Pimp.

And I don't watch CSI, but there was a similar episode on Law and Order: CI. However, if we're to take anything from that show, it'd be that these games give ideas and bring out violence in people who are already ****ed up. (I do believe that violent games can **** you up if they catch you at an early age and don't have any balancing influences.)

It shouldn't matter whats in a game.

The person playing it should have a fundamental understanding in the difference between right and wrong and the difference between a fictional game and reality. Some people just weren't brought up properly.

For people who do do violent things; if it wasn't a game that triggered them to do something violent, it would have been something else, its in their nature

In a perfect world sure. But I don't see how that absolves us of our responsibility to eliminate what "triggers" we can. In a perfect world there would be no optic epileptics and we wouldn't have to dilly about with refresh rates. Does that mean its OK to send 1% of the population into convulsions? After all, it in their nature.

Taking responcibility not to harm some1 with a disability is completely different. It is the player's and not the developer's responcibility to behave in the correct manner. The difference between a person with a disability such as epilepsy and a person who does something wrong is that the latter chooses to do it whereas the former does not.

Quote:

Original post by Cybergrape In a perfect world sure. But I don't see how that absolves us of our responsibility to eliminate what "triggers" we can. In a perfect world there would be no optic epileptics and we wouldn't have to dilly about with refresh rates. Does that mean its OK to send 1% of the population into convulsions? After all, it in their nature.

That's why there's epilepsy warnings on virtually every game (and software package, for that matter) produced today.

Conversely, should we deprive the 99% of something they can enjoy because the 1% can't handle it? Most people would say no.