As if GTA wasn't influencing enough kids already...

[Dek]

...up comes Rockstar to make a spin-off OF THEIR OWN DAMN GAME!

This game (which was shown at E3) is called Bully...yeah...I'm sure you already know what you have to do...

For those that are slower than other users, the object of the game is to control the "protagonist," Jimmy Hopkins, a 15-year-old child who was expelled from a prep school, and his journey at Bullworth Academy. And by academy, I'm talking about every student wearing a uniform and whatnot...

Anyways,as Jimmy, you go around the school tormenting and torturing any child that attends Bullworth Academy. Whether it's playing a one-sided version of Dodgeball, giving kids swirlies, or just beating the shit out of someone the "good-old fashioned way," You're pretty much doing a child's version of everything you can do with GTA...

-GTA is to cars as Bully is to bikes
-GTA is to guns as Bully is to slingshots

Now why does this bother me, an 18-year-old gamer who is supposedly interested in this kind of stuff (according to studies and whatnot)? Because now kids are given a bigger influence, called Realistic Fiction, to show off on today's society. While I'm not going to say this will happen, I will say that there is a good chance that there will be an increase of bullying in REAL schools because of this game...

What has the world come to...?

[KodiaX987]

There wouldn't be any influence if parents actually read the warning labels on the game package.

Case closed.

[Blitzkommando]

If the parents are fool enough to let little Billy have it then they deserve any "influences" that result. In any event, the child has a pretty weak grip on reality if he lets a freaking videogame "teach him what to do." Sorry but the ratings, as horribly vague as they are, are still on the freaking package for the world to see. It is the same thing as movies and music. It is the parent's job to determine what is good and not good for their child to read/watch/play/listen to/whatever.

In the actual game itself, it sounds like it will suck, so meh. Then again I never thought highly of the GTA games anyway. Just another Third-person shooter just with sex and more language thrown in.

[Ness]

On 2005-06-18 19:30, KodiaX987 wrote:
There wouldn't be any influence if parents actually read the warning labels on the game package.

Case closed.



I Agree with everything he just said. That makes him right and everyone who disagrees with him wrong.

Seriously, the only reason videogames affect kids so much is because of poor parenting.

[Solstis]

No, no, no.

Parent schmarents, kids are going to get a hold of this. It's not that the game is actually telling kids to do things, but showing them that it's perfectly okay to harass others, and that they can get away with it.

See: Navi's thread. School children are bad enough as it is. They don't need a video game affirming their stupidity. If people can kill each other other over a bit of code, and "gangbanging" became even more romantisced after GTA...

[Orange_Coconut]

The thing is, it's not fair to blame it all on one thing. It's true that the parents need to actually buy these kinds of games for their kids, and it's probably true that most of them don't even know what they're giving their child. At the same time, people should know what is right from wrong. I don't know the age group of the children buying these games, but when a child hits a certain age he/she should know what is acceptable and what is not within our society, even if they're not mature.

Schools start with teaching children how to work collaboratively with others and look down upon bullying. They then go into teaching kids about the past, and trying to teach the children about good things people have done in the past as well as bad things that people have done.

I believe that it is a person's fault to act on things shown in a videogame. People should know that what is able to be done in a game is not necessarily able to be done, at least rightfully so, in real life.

There are many different factors in what may influence kids with violent behaviors. I'm not saying that the parents are guilt free, because they are definitely part of the problem if they're not keeping tabs on what their children are playing. But at the same time, the children should have learned about right and wrong from their parents, peers, teachers.. Many different things. Even at early ages there is minor violence in some children just because they don't know any better.

I personally am not into those kinds of games, and in no way do I think they have a positive influence. But I don't think that it's purely the fault of the game or the parents. It does bother me, however, that someone would make a game like this. I view a game as something that one should have fun with, if this is what someone calls fun then that's what they call fun. They should know that this kind of thing is not acceptable to perform in real life, though.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orange_Coconut on 2005-06-18 23:42 ]</font>

[Blitzkommando]

On 2005-06-18 22:08, Solstis wrote:
No, no, no.

Parent schmarents, kids are going to get a hold of this. It's not that the game is actually telling kids to do things, but showing them that it's perfectly okay to harass others, and that they can get away with it.

See: Navi's thread. School children are bad enough as it is. They don't need a video game affirming their stupidity. If people can kill each other other over a bit of code, and "gangbanging" became even more romantisced after GTA...


Sorry, if a parent is incompetant enough not to know what their kid(s) is/are doing, then they shouldn't have had kids in the first place. That is the parents' job. I'm not saying I agree with Rockstar, personally I could care less if they didn't exist, but what I am saying is that it is not the company's fault because a parent is incompotent. And seriously, if the parents don't have warning bells going off with a game called "Bully", then they don't care, or they don't pay attention at all. Either way, it is incompotence.

And yes, I read that thread. You think kids just started doing that kind of shit? Kids have been, and will continue to, do that kind of stupid stuff because well, they are immature little kids. And generally it can be traced to immature parenting.

[darthsaber9x9]

On 2005-06-19 00:14, BLITZKOMMANDO wrote:


On 2005-06-18 22:08, Solstis wrote:
No, no, no.

Parent schmarents, kids are going to get a hold of this. It's not that the game is actually telling kids to do things, but showing them that it's perfectly okay to harass others, and that they can get away with it.

See: Navi's thread. School children are bad enough as it is. They don't need a video game affirming their stupidity. If people can kill each other other over a bit of code, and "gangbanging" became even more romantisced after GTA...


Sorry, if a parent is incompetant enough not to know what their kid(s) is/are doing, then they shouldn't have had kids in the first place. That is the parents' job. I'm not saying I agree with Rockstar, personally I could care less if they didn't exist, but what I am saying is that it is not the company's fault because a parent is incompotent. And seriously, if the parents don't have warning bells going off with a game called "Bully", then they don't care, or they don't pay attention at all. Either way, it is incompotence.

And yes, I read that thread. You think kids just started doing that kind of shit? Kids have been, and will continue to, do that kind of stupid stuff because well, they are immature little kids. And generally it can be traced to immature parenting.



Thing is though, that by the game even existing in the first place, it still has an effect. If said child can't have said game then said child will probably still find a way to play it. And if not play it, then certainly read about and hear about it.

Personally I think it is a pretty bad game concept anyway.

[Deathscythealpha]

Erg, I saw the screens and concept for this game and just thought 'Why are Rockstar producing this shit?'. Ok Rockstar, we get it, your a 'Risque' company, way to go, power to the people, word to your motherblahblahblah. Ok, now how about you move on and do something constructive? How about a proper driving simulator (Oh, Midnight Club. Come on, push that more!)? An action adventure game where you use your wits and not your guns? Come on guys, your so 'Original' im sure you can find somehting else great to make.

Parents do need a lot more responsibility when buying these games for these kids. "They will play it anyway" is the common excuse I get when parents are buying GTA for their kids. Like fuck they would. If you had some sense of responsibilty you wouldnt let them play it 'anyway'. You would not let them load the game up on their system if a friend lent it to them, you may even consider not letting your child go around that childs house to play games for awhile. "Hey lil Jimmy, here's some Hardcore Porn. What, its got an 18 age rating? But he's gunna see it anyway, why not now?" Anyone who uses that excuse looses all credability with me and if their kid becomes a whacked out psycho, I hope they are the first person who gets hurt.

[Bradicus]

If you think Rockstar makes these games only for the 18+ crowd, you're dreaming. They expect, and even plan on it winding up in the hands of children (via stupid parent or negligent vendor) just as much as they plan on media coverage giving them their trademark "bad press".

They are not totally blameless in this, so keep that in mind.

Anyways, I'd just like them to move the fuck on. Let's see if they can survive making a game that relies on originality and gameplay to draw customers.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bradicus on 2005-06-19 09:44 ]</font>

[Ness]

The child can play the game, but it's the parenting that determines how much of an effect it has ont he child (in most cases).

[space_butler]

what are you people, the daily mail? games dont affect people any more than tv and films do, and yet they are more strictly moniterd. is this fair? i think not.

[Cannibal-Snowman]

Well, I couldn't care less about the whole 'originality' thing, because I don't play games by Rockstar. But I would like to point out that kids under the age of 18 WILL be able to get their hands on it, and parents can't do a damn thing about it. Do you wanna know why?

It's gonna be rated Teen. I read this in my Game Informer magazine:

"Although Rockstar is known for controversy, Bully is far different in tone than Grand Theft Auto or Manhunt (and will be Teen rated when it launches in October). Jimmy gets in his fair share of trouble, but there is no blood or graphic violence, and the overall tone is one of comic mischief."

Of course, this could end up convincing all those crazy Jack Thompson's that Teen-rated games are bad, too. Let's hope not.

[Deathscythealpha]

On 2005-06-19 10:18, space_butler wrote:
what are you people, the daily mail? games dont affect people any more than tv and films do, and yet they are more strictly moniterd. is this fair? i think not.



I think they should all be treated the same. Games are becoming too much like films these days, and that is kind of worrying. GTA games mimic the Gangster movies they have been inspired by, and I sure as hell wouldnt let anyone under the correct age see some of the Gangster flicks out there.

And im starting to think that Games/TV/Films do in fact effect children. My basis? Myself.

As a kid, I would watch cartoons such as 'He-Man', 'Transformers', 'Thundercats', those sort of shows. After watching the cartoon and playing with the toys, I would most likly been found pretending to be He-Man, taking on the evil Skeletor with my Cardboard tube sword. I was using my imagination to create new stories based around the shows I liked and using myself to re-enact them. This hasnt changed, as kids still like to pretend and have fun, mimicing the characters they like from TV and Games.

So, kids mimic what they see. Kids see He-Man take on evil Skeletor, they hit things with fake swords. Kids see Gangsters taking their turf and being menacing, there is a chance they will try and mimic the same things. All fun untill someone takes it too far. Yes, cardboard tubes hurt like hell if they catch you wrong, and when someone substitues a fake sword with something a bit more real, accidents can happen. I was stabbed in the mouth by my little cousin using a knife he was pretending was a dagger when I was younger. Not a malicous act, he was just mimicing what he had seen. Didnt stop my gums from bleeding loads (im lukcy it was a childs safety knife, or it could have been alot worse).

So, there is a small chance that this could also happen with Games, kids mimicing things and taking them to far. And with the abundance of Pellet Guns about, it only takes one moron to do somethign incredibly stupid.

Um, i think i got lost somewhere in that rant, heats killing me.

Ok, so the plot of the new Rockstar game is that your a Bully, right? Well it may seem like light hearted fun at first, all for comical effect. But then some kids start to pick up on it, find some 'New' insults to throw at the kids they dont like, start to pick up on some of the 'Comical' Bullying elements that they can carry over to real life. Its almost like showing a Bull a red rag.

This game seems like a bad idea and made purely for controversies sake. As i said earlier, Rockstar should grow up, move on and start making something more interlectual.

[Jive18]

On 2005-06-19 13:50, Deathscythealpha wrote:


On 2005-06-19 10:18, space_butler wrote:
what are you people, the daily mail? games dont affect people any more than tv and films do, and yet they are more strictly moniterd. is this fair? i think not.



I think they should all be treated the same. Games are becoming too much like films these days, and that is kind of worrying. GTA games mimic the Gangster movies they have been inspired by, and I sure as hell wouldnt let anyone under the correct age see some of the Gangster flicks out there.

And im starting to think that Games/TV/Films do in fact effect children. My basis? Myself.

As a kid, I would watch cartoons such as 'He-Man', 'Transformers', 'Thundercats', those sort of shows. After watching the cartoon and playing with the toys, I would most likly been found pretending to be He-Man, taking on the evil Skeletor with my Cardboard tube sword. I was using my imagination to create new stories based around the shows I liked and using myself to re-enact them. This hasnt changed, as kids still like to pretend and have fun, mimicing the characters they like from TV and Games.

So, kids mimic what they see. Kids see He-Man take on evil Skeletor, they hit things with fake swords. Kids see Gangsters taking their turf and being menacing, there is a chance they will try and mimic the same things. All fun untill someone takes it too far. Yes, cardboard tubes hurt like hell if they catch you wrong, and when someone substitues a fake sword with something a bit more real, accidents can happen. I was stabbed in the mouth by my little cousin using a knife he was pretending was a dagger when I was younger. Not a malicous act, he was just mimicing what he had seen. Didnt stop my gums from bleeding loads (im lukcy it was a childs safety knife, or it could have been alot worse).

So, there is a small chance that this could also happen with Games, kids mimicing things and taking them to far. And with the abundance of Pellet Guns about, it only takes one moron to do somethign incredibly stupid.

Um, i think i got lost somewhere in that rant, heats killing me.

Ok, so the plot of the new Rockstar game is that your a Bully, right? Well it may seem like light hearted fun at first, all for comical effect. But then some kids start to pick up on it, find some 'New' insults to throw at the kids they dont like, start to pick up on some of the 'Comical' Bullying elements that they can carry over to real life. Its almost like showing a Bull a red rag.

This game seems like a bad idea and made purely for controversies sake. As i said earlier, Rockstar should grow up, move on and start making something more interlectual.



You are absolutely right Deathscythe. I can vividly remember watching Power Rangers as a kid and afterwards punching my sister in the arm, just becasue I thought I was a Power Ranger too. Kids, along with teenagers, are most definently leaving effects on them, especially because kids cannot think enough for themselves enough to realize what is bad for them.

Simply put, Rockstar is a company that has not been able to grasp a concept like this. The GTA series is one that I would never allow my kid to play, and yet Rockstar apparently doesn't give a damn about their audience.

[Bradicus]

Simply put, Rockstar is a company that has not been able to grasp a concept like this.

False


Rockstar apparently doesn't give a damn about their audience.

True.

[Jive18]

On 2005-06-19 14:26, Bradicus wrote:


Simply put, Rockstar is a company that has not been able to grasp a concept like this.

False


Rockstar apparently doesn't give a damn about their audience.

True.



So you're telling me that Rockstar realizes how their games affect those that play them, even kids, and yet they do nothing to change the image they have made for themselves and for their games? Wow, sure sounds like a great company to me *shakes head*.

[Deathscythealpha]

I think Rockstar do realise how their games can effect their audience, but they dont seem to be making to much of an effort to keep it out of their hands. Then again, there isnt really much they can do apart from put out Press Reports about how this is an adult game. As soon as the game is out of their doors and into the shops it becomes the Parents responsibilty to keep these titles out of the kids hands.

To a lesser extent the shops have a responsibility to not sell the games to minors and warn parents of the games content. However, this can be a one sided battle as parents will turn a blind eye to sales assitants at times. I push the fact that GTA:SA has strong Violent, Drug and Sex themes in the games, but we go back to my first post with the answer being "They will play it anyway".

Rockstar could maybe try and put the Younger Audience off these games by not glamourising them as much, take some of the allure away from the kids or something. Im stuck for answers on that one, but im sure theres ways to make these games not appeal to kids (apart from putting out a pile of cack game). They could also help by putting out a promotional leaflet to be distributed instores, warning of the content in these games and possible effects.

[Arislan]

I can attest to the children being affected by media, especially Video Games. As a kid, I used to play what my friends and I called "I-Games" (Imagination games). Same thing, just acting out and expanding on stories. We played with Contra themes, Crystalis... You name it. At one point, I got accidentally stabbed in the stomach by a knife in the course of play. Of course, we learned after that to not use stabby things, but still.

Media, whether games or movies or shows, have a defintite impact on children.

[Neith]

I think it's a pretty stupid idea for a game. I don;t know what it's like in the US and everywhere else, but where I'm from, the GTA games were bough by a lot of the main trouble-causers on the estate. Seeing as 'Bully' is another Rockstar Game, with violence encouraged, surely some people will see it as another great game.

I reckon it could lead to more bullying in schools, which is bad enough already (hell, it was bad when I was there in 2002!)

Sure, Rockstar will likely put an age restriction on it, but kids always get their parents to buy stuff for them. I've done it myself (when Vice City was released, I don;t think I was 18), so I got my mum to buy it.
When she saw what the game involved, she wasn't too bothered, as long as I didn't go round stealing cars at night, and nailing people with SMG's.

Parents don't tend to think of games as serious, and don't think they can be that influential, but to some people, they could be. How many people acted out things when they were a small kid? I used to play Mortal Kombat with my primary school friends. Sure, it was cool at the time, but without knowing it, the MK games were influencing us to a certain extent. (God knows why I was playing MK in primary school http://pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif)

If a violent child in school gets hold of this new 'game', it's likely they'll re-create this by taking it out on other kids.

I would say Rockstar should change their marketing tactics, and target audience, but they're making so much money, they have no reason to, which is a shame.

[Flame_Master]

On 2005-06-20 03:36, UrikoBB3 wrote:
I think it's a pretty stupid idea for a game.


agreed. i personally hate this game, but my friends loves it. i think the graphic of the game is shit and the concept of the game is just evil. i think it promotes too much violents.

[SLON]

GTA is a nasty game, simply because its main character (ie you the gameplayer) can commit any crime you want and get away with it. Sure, you get arrested by the cops, but 5 seconds later you are out of prison(very realistic). Bit short of money for that new car part? Kill any innocent passer-by and take their wallet. In real life you would call a person who did that a psychopath.
Yes, most adults can see this as just a bit of fun, but lets face it, most of the people who play this game are kids, and it seems the younger they are, the more desperate they are to have it. I know a number of 8 and 9 year olds who have this game. Don't tell me it is not an influence on them.
As for the parents, there are plenty of parents who don't give a damn what their kids do/watch/read. Rockstar are passing the blame by saying parents shouldn't buy such games. No, Rockstar, you shouldnt make them so violent. There is no reason why this game couldn't exist (a) without guns (b) without killing.
How long before we have a game based on concentration camps? Why not? We all know it would only be a game, after all.

[Deathscythealpha]

On 2005-06-20 05:14, SLON wrote:
GTA is a nasty game, simply because its main character (ie you the gameplayer) can commit any crime you want and get away with it. Sure, you get arrested by the cops, but 5 seconds later you are out of prison(very realistic). Bit short of money for that new car part? Kill any innocent passer-by and take their wallet. In real life you would call a person who did that a psychopath.

Yes, most adults can see this as just a bit of fun, but lets face it, most of the people who play this game are kids, and it seems the younger they are, the more desperate they are to have it. I know a number of 8 and 9 year olds who have this game. Don't tell me it is not an influence on them.
As for the parents, there are plenty of parents who don't give a damn what their kids do/watch/read. Rockstar are passing the blame by saying parents shouldn't buy such games. No, Rockstar, you shouldnt make them so violent. There is no reason why this game couldn't exist (a) without guns (b) without killing.

How long before we have a game based on concentration camps? Why not? We all know it would only be a game, after all.



Hmm, now thats a bit extreme. I dont think anyone (not even Rockstar) would be foolhardy enough to produce a game where you run a concentration camp. There is no real way to glorify such a sickening event in history.

Why GTA wouldnt work without Guns and Killing: Your taking out the gameplay people want. People want to be able to escape to a universe where they can do things that they cant normally do legally. In GTA its steal cars, kill people and be a gangster. Why would this appeal to people? The rise of Gangster films that have glorified this past time. Most of these films try to send out a moral message at the end that these actions are wrong, but I find that they normally dont have the right punch, and its the rest of a characters acts, not their 'redemption', that the viewer remembers. I dont really remember a moral downside to the characters actions in the GTA games, maybe this is one of Rockstars flaws?

And not making the games so violent? But that would mean not to have violence in any games. Violence when portrayed in the correct way can come of as perfectly fine, its when the acts of violence become gratuitous and just for the sake of violence that it becomes a problem. Like with 'Soldier of Fortune', where you could dismember a corpse. In one sense its a realistic act, but it doesnt play any useful role in the game, other then to entertain the player.

Actions need consequences in games. Terrible acts need to be shown to have the correct consequence and not be glorified.

*This is a very interesting issue to discuss, as there is alot of different views that can be taken on the subject*

[Anubis_]

Rockstar knows there games could effect people, but they do it anyway, and you know why, Violence sells.

But I mean come on.. theirs an MA sticker on it.

So reguardless if you say, its a game about a kid beating up some one. I'm sure its got the same rating. Just like movies.

Now if you wanna get rid of all MA rated games, we might as well get rid of all R rated movies. And lets just take out 97 percent of the Music industry why we're at it. Then all We'll be left with is The disney Channel.

Now if the games was rated E. Then yeah you'd have a case. But I mean common if you let video games effect your either a kid or mentaly handicaped. And if your one of those, you shouldn't be playing the game in the first place.

[Neith]

On 2005-06-20 06:23, Deathscythealpha wrote:
Hmm, now thats a bit extreme. I dont think anyone (not even Rockstar) would be foolhardy enough to produce a game where you run a concentration camp. There is no real way to glorify such a sickening event in history.


Actually, someone did make a game based on this. Can't remember the name off-hand, but it was an early sims style game, with the 'twist' of running a concentration camp... This was way back, before the introduction of a rating system.

Likewise, there were user-made variants of Doom, the majority of which included killing ethnic groups (there was a whole load of them , Jews, Blacks, it's sick..)

Most of these probably got nuked when ratings wre introduced, but they did exist. Note that the Concentration Camp game was not user-made, it was an official release.

Sorry I can't remember the name or year though. Not that anyone would really want to play it (I'd hope they wouldn't anyway)

[SLON]

Here's a typical event from GTA. You go to a rival gang's HQ and firebomb it, killing any survivors, except a girl trapped by the fire. You rescue her and she falls for you and wants to be your girl (very realistic). To celebrate you go out drive-by shooting people walking down the street. If that is not explicit unnecessary violence, I dont know what is.

[Deathscythealpha]

On 2005-06-20 08:06, UrikoBB3 wrote:
Actually, someone did make a game based on this. Can't remember the name off-hand, but it was an early sims style game, with the 'twist' of running a concentration camp... This was way back, before the introduction of a rating system.

Likewise, there were user-made variants of Doom, the majority of which included killing ethnic groups (there was a whole load of them , Jews, Blacks, it's sick..)

Most of these probably got nuked when ratings wre introduced, but they did exist. Note that the Concentration Camp game was not user-made, it was an official release.


Ah, the early years of freeware and Indy Game Developers. I am aware of such products, such as the White Supremist First Person Shooters and such. You see though, these games werent produced as mass market products or something to be sold in shops.

As you said, some of these games were User Made, and as such were the first few products of Mod Teams. Some of these Mod Teams had a rather twisted sense of humour, or White Supremists, and made these Mods. Now unless your a moron or actually have something against minorities/enjoy genocide, your not actively going to hunt these Mods down.

Now the Concentration Camp game, from what you said it reeks of Bedroom Developed Title. Most likely would have been sold in Independant Game Stores and manufactured by the creator his self. There is no real chance of a major publisher picking up such a taboo subject as a game, as its inviting law suits. No company now would produce such a product, as weve wised up quite a lot. So it looks like that one is gunna remain an obscure and kinda sick title from back in the day.

[Neith]

Yeah, here's hoping titles like that stay in the past.. http://pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_disapprove.gif

The Concentration Camp game I covered in my History of Games module at Uni. AFAIK, the game was made by a small gaming company, and distributed to a relatively small amount of people. Wouldn't surprise me if people played it though, especially with White Supremacy groups and the like..

It's a sickening world.

[Bradicus]

So you're telling me that Rockstar realizes how their games affect those that play them, even kids, and yet they do nothing to change the image they have made for themselves and for their games?

Exactly


Wow, sure sounds like a great company to me *shakes head*.

They're not the first to use the old "No press is bad press" motto, and they will certainly not be the last. I don't think they're a "bad" company, just unoriginal parasites. That may sound bad, but it's actually more of an average :x

[Deathscythealpha]

On 2005-06-20 08:39, UrikoBB3 wrote:
Yeah, here's hoping titles like that stay in the past.. http://pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_disapprove.gif

The Concentration Camp game I covered in my History of Games module at Uni. AFAIK, the game was made by a small gaming company, and distributed to a relatively small amount of people. Wouldn't surprise me if people played it though, especially with White Supremacy groups and the like..

It's a sickening world.



We had a lesson similer to that. We covered a Spectrum Game titled 'Custers Revenge'. You played the part of a Cowboy who's job was to cross a small area, dodging the falling arrows, and raping the Indian Girl at the end of the screen by rapidly bashing the Space bar. An atrocious game that got removed from sale in a few areas if I remember rightly.

[Outrider]

On 2005-06-20 10:25, Deathscythealpha wrote:
We had a lesson similer to that. We covered a Spectrum Game titled 'Custers Revenge'. You played the part of a Cowboy who's job was to cross a small area, dodging the falling arrows, and raping the Indian Girl at the end of the screen by rapidly bashing the Space bar. An atrocious game that got removed from sale in a few areas if I remember rightly.



Heh. Custer's Revenge comes up every once in a while when a media outlet decides to do an article on "offensive" or "sexual" games. I think it's funny that something so incredibly atrocious would get made.

Look, I play GTA. I think they can be fun. But they certainly sell as well as they do because of the controversy surrounding them. But the game has poor gameplay and terrible graphics. It's mostly fun for me because of the open-ended world. Having a "living" city is a real cool concept, although sometimes I think Majora's Mask did it better in some aspects.

However, I think it's worth mentioning that the argument of "if parents don't buy it for their kids, the kids will still get it" doesn't make much sense. It's true in some situations where a kid might have an older sibling get it for him or something, but for most kids, they're not going to own this game or play it enough to get affected by it. Their only source of games are their parents, and that's it. I think the largest problem is the parents who will go into the game store in order to get a distraction for their kid. We've all seen a parent like that when we're in the store. They simply want to get something to keep their kid occupied. Here's a hint: Just trying to keep your kid distracted so you can do what you want is generally BAD parenting.

However, I think it's also worth mentioning that GTA games are hardly the reason some kids are violent. Violence in general can affect somebody, but I think the argument that GTA is the downfall of society is a little far-fetched. (Also, has anybody ever read stuff with Jack Thompson or remember the thread we had a while back in Off-Topic where people e-mailed him? The man is insane and more importantly, a scumbag. He's merely using the victims of these crimes and the video game industry as a way to make a load of money for himself.)

[Deathscythealpha]

Seems GTA is causing a bit of controversy in Japan at the minute. And I never knew Japan didnt have a serious age rating system for their games.

http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/grandtheftauto3/news_6127821.html

[Shigecki]

On 2005-06-20 07:11, Anubis_ wrote:

Now if the games was rated E. Then yeah you'd have a case. But I mean common if you let video games effect your either a kid or mentaly handicaped. And if your one of those, you shouldn't be playing the game in the first place.



The military used Doom for a while in training troops for combat. This was used to create an image that what you are killing isn't real, and making it easier to pull the trigger on another human.

This was started in the Vietnam war when the militay would use targets shaped like humans to train the troops, and it worked, troops were more likely to pull the trigger if what they are firing at wasn't real. Statistics of troops firing on humans increased in the Vietnam war from WWII.

I'm not sure if the use of doom is still going on today, but images can influence even the non young or mentally handicapped, it's proven.

[ai_no_usagi]

that...is the saddest thing. why would they make a game like that? I mean..why would they make GTA, but this is terrible. I coudln't believe it at first, but I looked it up on e3's site, and there it was. I haven't read the other replies to this, so if I accidentally ripped you off, sorry.
I think if this game gets made:

1. kids ARE going to buy it, because it's the guys who made GTA and it's violent. ooooo. if they can get money somehow, they can sneak it past thir parents.

2. parents will probably buy this game for their 10-12 year old kids, because..well, I don't know. but they will, for some reason, buy this game. and when their kids get suspended from school for bullying kids..it is partially their fault for buying it.

but it's also their fault for not teaching kids the difference between fact and fiction, and what's right and wrong.
it seems parents just don't care. I remember hearing from my boyfriend once, that in america, and particularly the younger generation, the line between real life, and what's not real is..practically invisible. and frankly, I blame bad parenting. it's not Rockstar, or the TV companies making kids become violent or just plain stupid, it is BAD PARENTING. I vote forced sterility and lab births.
sorry, that got off topic miiiighty quick.

[Cannibal-Snowman]

2. parents will probably buy this game for their 10-12 year old kids, because..well, I don't know. but they will, for some reason, buy this game. and when their kids get suspended from school for bullying kids..it is partially their fault for buying it. I'd just like to point this out (again): The parents don't have to buy the game for their 10-12 year old kids! The 10-12 year old kids can buy it by themselves, because this game is going to be rated TEEN!

[Deathscythealpha]

On 2005-06-21 09:37, Cannibal-Snowman wrote:

2. parents will probably buy this game for their 10-12 year old kids, because..well, I don't know. but they will, for some reason, buy this game. and when their kids get suspended from school for bullying kids..it is partially their fault for buying it.

I'd just like to point this out (again): The parents don't have to buy the game for their 10-12 year old kids! The 10-12 year old kids can buy it by themselves, because this game is going to be rated TEEN!



The game is still in development, thus doesnt have an age rating yet. The game has to be completed and tested by a Board of...people to recieve an age rating. If developers could stick any old age rating on their games mid development we would be well and truly screwed.

[Outrider]

On 2005-06-21 10:18, Deathscythealpha wrote:


On 2005-06-21 09:37, Cannibal-Snowman wrote:

2. parents will probably buy this game for their 10-12 year old kids, because..well, I don't know. but they will, for some reason, buy this game. and when their kids get suspended from school for bullying kids..it is partially their fault for buying it.

I'd just like to point this out (again): The parents don't have to buy the game for their 10-12 year old kids! The 10-12 year old kids can buy it by themselves, because this game is going to be rated TEEN!



The game is still in development, thus doesnt have an age rating yet. The game has to be completed and tested by a Board of...people to recieve an age rating. If developers could stick any old age rating on their games mid development we would be well and truly screwed.



Also, I know that I at least was talking about these controversial games in general, and not just Bully. Obviously, most of the games that make the news (in a bad way) are all rated M.

[Jive18]

On 2005-06-20 09:58, Bradicus wrote:

They're not the first to use the old "No press is bad press" motto, and they will certainly not be the last. I don't think they're a "bad" company, just unoriginal parasites. That may sound bad, but it's actually more of an average http://pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_mad.gif



I definently understand what you mean, but it still angers me about how their games are marketed to such an extent as to become sought after by little kids.