Blown out of the water

As you may or may not have heard, GTA IV was released last week and set record sales for release day at $310 million and release week at $500 million, blowing Halo 3's sale record of $170 million on release day out of the water. Not only was this game highly anticipated by gamers, but it is also highly controversial with many conservative people and organizations. If you've been following any of those idiots who think videogame content leads to people taking part in similar behavior in real life then you know the name Jack Thompson, the lawyer who pretty much tries to take a stand against any violent game, and GTA IV just gave him more firepower. Another group that has made a complaint about the game is MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), although their beef is that the game allows you to drive while intoxicated, which is not such a broad hate for the game, but still assumes we are zombies that will only do things that videogames influence us to do.

Now the biggest controversy so far is the "Ladies of Liberty City" video and what the player is doing in the game in that video. The video shows the player go into a strip club and get a lap dance, as well as pick up hookers, have sex in the car, let them out, and then shoot them. Now the fact is that when you make a video like that and someone like Jack Thompson gets a hold of it, he's going to twist it in his own way and make it seem like that is what the game is all about and convince non-gamers to agree with him. The point is that anyone judging a game by this little video is an idiot. There is never a situation in the game where you have to have sex with a hooker and then kill her as some sort of mission, or drive drunk for that matter, but the game does allow you to do this on your own time. Unlike the fairly linear games of the 80's and 90's, the newer games have a lot more side content, other activities in the game that don't affect the outcome but give you something else to do to keep the experience going.

Another complaint I've heard about the game is that it should be rated AO (Adults Only), for people over 18. I understand that the game can get graphic, but it's also rated MA, meaning for people over 17, the equivalent of a rated R movie, and I would consider that a fair rating. First of all, how is upping the age cutoff by one year going to make a difference? Secondly, it would seem to me that ratings on games should mirror our movie rating system. I haven't played through everything in the game, but from what I've seen there is no nudity, and the violence and swearing is nothing worse than what you'd see in a rated R movie, hence the rating seems to hold. You think this game glorifies crime and violence? Go watch the Godfather, or Goodfellas, or any other gangster movie and tell me those don't do the same. Hell, some of them won academy awards and you're going to tell me that because it's a videogame it should be judged differently?

Games are not marketed to just kids anymore, despite what some may choose to believe. All those kids from the 80's and 90's are adults now, many of whom still play videogames, and the industry knows that and makes games that appeal to adults. The fact that kids have access to these games is not the fault of the programmers, it's more the fault of the parents who don't supervise well enough or just don't care. I worked at a Blockbuster Video for 3 years, and more often than not it was the parents renting the games, and they didn't seem to care what the rating was. I remember a kid handing his mom the Playboy Mansion game to rent and she didn't even give it a second glance, just put it up on the counter along with her movies. I even brought up the fact that it was a Playboy game and would have Playboy content, but she just said her kids have been or will be exposed to it at some point anyway, so why try to stop it.

The last point I want to make in this rant is that assuming people are going to perform the same acts of violence they see in a game is ignorant at best. If you're going to make this assumption then do some research to back up your claim. The argument is that these violent games cause increases in crime. Now I don't remember where I found it, but someone made a graph of crime trends over the years and added in release dates of videogames. Do you think it showed increases every time a game was released? Nope, actually it was the opposite. Ever since the original Doom came out violent crimes have been on the decline, and the release of the GTA games has yet to cause that to change. I think the anti-GTA people have it all wrong. It isn't that the game is going to cause non-violent people to commit violent crimes, it's that it gives an outlet to people who could potentially commit those violent crimes. Violent games don't turn people violent, that mindset comes from a different set of circumstances altogether, and GTA won't change that. What GTA does is give a place where violent people can let out their aggression on virtual people and still get enough satisfaction out of it that they don't go out and do it to real people.

I'm not leaving this open to debate. Any comments disagreeing with me will be read, but won't change my mind. I have heard of violent crimes that people try to link to videogames, but the fact is those people were capable of those crimes, videogame or not, and they may have even committed the crime sooner if not for the game. That about covers it I guess, just wanted to get my thoughts about it put into words. Next post won't be a rant.