Of course the real hoopla with GTA:SA wasn't the violence, it was the sex. It all started with the "Hot Coffee" patch. Not that the right-wing lunatics of the Democratic Leadership Conference wouldn't have found some reason to shout about GTA, but this was their way in.
After Hot Coffee surfaced, GTA:SA was pulled from the shelves, and eventually rerated AO for Adults Only. How exactly is this different from M for Mature?
For an M, if you're not an adult, you have to convince your parents to buy it for you even though you probably shouldn't be playing it.
For an AO, if you're not an adult, you have to convince your parents to pretend to buy it for themselves and then give it to you even though you probably shouldn't be playing it.
(If you're Dad's too much of a pussy to look the salesman in the eye and say, "Yes, I want to play Grand Theft Auto," he can just tell them it's for his 18-year-old son in college.)
The difference is supposed to be the sexual content. Never mind the whole argument about hidden content that you have to download a mod to access (and RockStar shouldn't have tried it). Among dozens of minigames is a cheesy sex game with no nudity, and this is somehow less acceptable for tender young children of 17 than Grand Theft Auto.
Well, I suppose it might be dangerous for kids to think they could have sex without taking their pants off. They'll be bragging to their friends that they "went all the way" when all they got was a dry-hump--and they won't even know they're lying. A whole generation could grow up pathetic.
But somehow, I don't think this is what Hillary, Tipper, and Hadassah are all pissed off about.
Showing posts with label games. Show all posts
Showing posts with label games. Show all posts
14 December 2005
Grand Theft Auto: The Violence
Does Grand Theft Auto really affect kids? Are today's kids going to be jacking cars to do drivebys for corrupt cops tomorrow? Of course not; that's so 90's (before the games even came out).
Besides, in my day, the biggest game was Pacman. Did my whole generation end up eating pills and running around a dark room to a repetitive beat?
Hmmm... Bad argument. Let's try a different tack.
First, kids aren't supposed to be playing these games.
Pacman was pretty much for everyone, except the small number of people who were over 25 when it came out and therefore never got it. But there were games clearly intended for different markets by the time I was a teenager.
You wouldn't want a 6-year-old to face the trauma of real combat in the form of wireframe tanks approaching over a 2D landscape. And it takes a certain amount of maturity to face up to the awesome responsibility of losing at Defender and failing the last of the humanoids. And the demonic talking space station Sinistar would scare the crap out of any young kid other than maybe Damien the Omen.
On the other hand, the Strawberry Shortcake game was torture to anyone in double-digit ages.
And then there was Master Blaster, a game for the Apple ][ that simulated masturbation, which was obviously too mature for anyone under 18 and far too immature for anyone old enough to masturbate for real.
Now we have this rating system, brought to you by the Clinton/Gore/Lieberman families (you know, the ones who were going to save us from the Bush family fascism). I'm not sure I like the rating system, but it's the same people who pushed for it who are now attacking game companies that follow it.
RockStar claimed that GTA:SA was Mature, and it is. It has lots of violence, tons of antisocial content, light sexual content, and the kind of social satire that nobody really enjoys until they're in college (and not for long after).
The M rating, for Mature, means that if you're not an adult, you have to get your parents to buy it for you. Sort of like R for movies, but with much more detail. There's no way your parents could buy you GTA:SA without knowing what it was about. Besides, the name ought to have been a clue.
Second, if any of these governmental wives had played any of the GTA3 series, they might have liked the messages. Bad guys screw each other over and always lose in the end. Drugs kill. When you spray a room with a Tec-9 it's really easy to accidentally kill your friends. The good cops hate the bad ones. Chuck D is insane. You can make more money putting out fires than setting them (although you do have to steal a firetruck first).
The violence in the GTA3 series is less extreme, less graphic, and at the same time less realistic than you find in movies--and the guys who make those movies get to be governor of Minnesota or California, while the game developers are threatened with bodily harm by Congressmen.
And when is the Predator himself going to get to be governor instead of letting the minor characters get all the glory?
Besides, in my day, the biggest game was Pacman. Did my whole generation end up eating pills and running around a dark room to a repetitive beat?
Hmmm... Bad argument. Let's try a different tack.
First, kids aren't supposed to be playing these games.
Pacman was pretty much for everyone, except the small number of people who were over 25 when it came out and therefore never got it. But there were games clearly intended for different markets by the time I was a teenager.
You wouldn't want a 6-year-old to face the trauma of real combat in the form of wireframe tanks approaching over a 2D landscape. And it takes a certain amount of maturity to face up to the awesome responsibility of losing at Defender and failing the last of the humanoids. And the demonic talking space station Sinistar would scare the crap out of any young kid other than maybe Damien the Omen.
On the other hand, the Strawberry Shortcake game was torture to anyone in double-digit ages.
And then there was Master Blaster, a game for the Apple ][ that simulated masturbation, which was obviously too mature for anyone under 18 and far too immature for anyone old enough to masturbate for real.
Now we have this rating system, brought to you by the Clinton/Gore/Lieberman families (you know, the ones who were going to save us from the Bush family fascism). I'm not sure I like the rating system, but it's the same people who pushed for it who are now attacking game companies that follow it.
RockStar claimed that GTA:SA was Mature, and it is. It has lots of violence, tons of antisocial content, light sexual content, and the kind of social satire that nobody really enjoys until they're in college (and not for long after).
The M rating, for Mature, means that if you're not an adult, you have to get your parents to buy it for you. Sort of like R for movies, but with much more detail. There's no way your parents could buy you GTA:SA without knowing what it was about. Besides, the name ought to have been a clue.
Second, if any of these governmental wives had played any of the GTA3 series, they might have liked the messages. Bad guys screw each other over and always lose in the end. Drugs kill. When you spray a room with a Tec-9 it's really easy to accidentally kill your friends. The good cops hate the bad ones. Chuck D is insane. You can make more money putting out fires than setting them (although you do have to steal a firetruck first).
The violence in the GTA3 series is less extreme, less graphic, and at the same time less realistic than you find in movies--and the guys who make those movies get to be governor of Minnesota or California, while the game developers are threatened with bodily harm by Congressmen.
And when is the Predator himself going to get to be governor instead of letting the minor characters get all the glory?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
