[Just your average movie goer]

Ah, I wasn't familiar with the other acts of random violence you could do in the game. Now that you have pointed them out, it is a bit of a puzzler why they took issue with just one. But from these posts, it sounds like the killing of the prostitute was actually a mission objective... which is a little different from just having an opportunity to kill innocent people. If this is the case, then it may explain why they board took special issue with this, while ignoring other aspects of the game.

[barend]

IF anything, that part of the game encourages prostitutes to hire protection or at least pimps.

[Heccubus]

Whether it was an objective or not, the killing of an innocent in GTA3 is still that, it's IN GTA3. The problem is not the content of video games, it's the fact that if games truly are the cause of heinous acts such as this, then the problem is the people playing them who cannot properly separate game from reality. I, at one point, owned all four Grand Theft Auto games, and I have a pretty short fuse sometimes. And yet no lives have been lost by my hand. I also happen to enjoy a number of violent games (the Metal Gear Solid series, for example) that use violence for something other than shock value. Yet, I'm not mucking about schools shooting people with a god-damned assault rifle.
Oh, I'll admit that it seems quite jim-dandy to just drive down a random street firing out the windows at every woman in a short skirt that I happen across, but I also admit that there are rather dire consequences to be had for said actions. Rockstar have said several times that they do not feel the violence in the Grand Theft Auto series to be out of the ordinary, and I'm willing to agree. It's cartoonish, for starters, unlike most PC-based FPS games. When you shoot someone, blood does not fly thirty feet through the air in enormous droplets that could choke a donkey. The amount of violence in the GTA series truly does depend on the player at the helm. If some snotty little punk kid decides to forego the complex story lines found within and just drive around the first level blowing stuff up, that is not Rockstar's fault. That is the gamer acting independently, and not playing the game the way it's meant to be played. Either way, if someone sues Rockstar, it'll be chump change compared to the amount of money that they're all rolling in from whatever title is in question. As much as I'd hate to admit it, they're one of the best-selling developers out there right now.

[SimeSublime]

An interesting question to ask yourself is what you would do if there were no consequences, or more accuratly, you were unaccountable for your actions? I would without doubt become some sort of vigilante, killing anyone I thought didn't deserve to live. For example, I saw some kid spit on a window the other day at work, for no reason other then he was bored. If I could kill with a thought, he would be dead.

[barend]

if it were the case with me, the trip into work would be that of a bloody mess of a path!!!

people are too rude to deserve to live....

--------------------------------

but getting back to the point...

I'm not crazy!!!

people who kill massive groups of people are crazy...

people who tease people in school everyday, picking away at that persons sanity untill they inevitably snap are really fucking crazy and deserve to die...

how about that fuckin angle moral majority? could it be the church telling people their evil, or the 3.8 guns per houshold, or maybe the fact that these people have irrisponsible parents...

i remember hearing a story about an overweight kid who was teased everyday in school, untill one day he marched up to the front of assembly, pulled out a gun and shot himself in front of everyone...

what fucking game, band, movie, or book was responsible for that?

people like to fuck with people to breaking point then complain when that person turns out to be a fragile human with emotions who reacts to stimuli. and reacts accordingly and with a direct corrilation to the manner in which they have been treated.

[Rory]

I would without doubt become some sort of vigilante, killing anyone I thought didn't deserve to live. For example, I saw some kid spit on a window the other day at work, for no reason other then he was bored. If I could kill with a thought, he would be dead.

if it were the case with me, the trip into work would be that of a bloody mess of a path!!!

people are too rude to deserve to live....


...but getting back to the point...

I'm not crazy!!

*COUGHS AWKWARDLY*

Okay, neither of you are crazy. But you do score very low on the Kholberg Scale of Morality.

This post has been edited by Rory: 04 August 2004 - 08:17 AM

[Just your average movie goer]

I'm siding with Sime and Barend on this one, Rory. There are a lot of people out here that don't deserve to live. Think about how much resources are required to keep the average human being alive, how many innocent animals die to feed them, how much the natural environment is raped to sustain them...

so when you have people who have nothing to offer the world except to do bad things to other people, animals and their environment, why should they have a right to live?

[barend]

lets kill them now and blame, britney spears, sim-city, and legally blonde.

[SimeSublime]

Nice call. Rory, It may sound a bit extreme, but take this example. I was at work the other day collecting trolleys*groans*, and someone had left their bike outside the store. Some dickheads about 15 or so came by, and just started kicking and stomping on this bike simply because it was there. I should also point out that this was during school time, so they were obviously wagging. In my point of view, those kids should at the least get the crap beaten out of them until they learn to follow basic rules of civilisation, and to respect others property.

[Just your average movie goer]

I wanted to edit the above post but this forum wouldn't allow it for some unknown reason so please disregard it and read the more polished version (the draft of the assignment that I'll submit to my lecturer if you will) -

And you can add over-population into the equation as well. When you've got far too many people in the world as it is, we can't really afford to waste its precious resources on people who just want to make life difficult for others.

The kids Sime mentioned are living up while much better human beings are struggling on the poverty line? Maybe it's wrong to kill the aforementioned brats but we could at least turn the equation around. For one thing, it would make it a hell of a lot easier on World Vision if all the impoverished people in the world traded places with well-to-do assholes.

This post has been edited by Just your average movie goer: 04 August 2004 - 10:55 AM

[Heccubus]

I wanted to edit the above post but this forum wouldn't allow it for some unknown reason so please disregard it and read the more polished version (the draft of the assignment that I'll submit to my lecturer if you will)

I got rid of it for you, now none be the wiser.

[Stongbah]

For one thing, it would make it a hell of a lot easier on World Vision if all the impoverished people in the world traded places with well-to-do assholes.

Not really, being poor doesn't make your heart filled with kittens and rainbows, and besides the fact that poverty often leads to crime (not that I'm undermining how crappy there life is). There would be about the same asshole to nice person ratio.

[barend]

being poor doesn't make your heart filled with kittens and rainbows

no! well-to-do assholes took care of that, and keep pushing us further down...

now my heart's full of paracidic larvae and crapbows!!!

[Just your average movie goer]

I got rid of it for you, now none be the wiser.

Sweet! Thanks, Heccubus.

[Rory]

I would say those "assholes" deserve to live simply because they are capable of feeling pleasure and pain in an appreciable way. One of the principle tenats of my ethical system is that entities that can feel pleasure and pain deserve to live, or, to put it more accurately, their state of mind should be considered when making decisions. The only thing bad about those kids is that they might tend to cause other people pain. As such, steps should be taken to stop them from causing pain. For example, it would be perfectly acceptable to fine them for trying to destroy a bike. Beating them up, however, would cause them a great deal of pain, and might not even solve the problem. Killing them... well thats harder to explain in terms of pleasure and pain, but it does seem to be a rather extreme and immoral action to take... if you value your own life, then im sure you can see how they value there's. And their feelings count.

Overpopulation... Well, I'm pretty sure its a myth in America, and probably most of the world. The problem isn't that there are too many people; the problem is that resources aren't being divided up equally. So, before we go killing people we dont like, we should probably consider other solutions first. As I've said before, these people's feelings count just as much as mine or yours. However, if we do divide the resources equally, and then we find there's still not enough, then and only then, should we seriously consider killing the people who are sort of trying to make the world a crappy place to live. Until then, I'm perfectly content to try to reform them, fine them, or just lock them away in prison, where they can't do much to us, and can maybe live something resembling a not so horrible life.

Also, its important to consider the reprocussions of letting, say Barend, SimeSublime, and I kill whoever we please. First off, it would piss a lot of people off. How would you feel if you were a parent to a child that was killed because he stole a bike? thats all for now!