PDA

View Full Version : The evilest game ever...


Jonster
01-04-2004, 05:57 PM
<font color="#99CCFF">http://www.nypost.com/seven/12292003/business/14640.htm

I'm not gonna post it all, but take the time to read it, it's so ****ing stupid.
The language used makes it out to be the worst thing ever made.
I'll give some highlights and comments on the bits I find stupidest...

</font>In fact, "whatever you want" is what the game is all about. Thanks to its artful and complex programming and its incredibly realistic graphics, the game creates the impression of being inside a totally unscripted, live-action drama in which you can manufacture your mayhem as you go along.

People, this is insane. This is 10,000 times worse than the worst thing anybody thinks Michael Jackson ever did to a little boy - or than any lie the feds think Martha Stewart ever told them, or any line in any song that Bruce Springsteen ever sang that rankled a cop in the Meadowlands.

<font color="#99CCFF">Very evil see, 10,000 times worse than anything MJ may have done... hmm

</font>FOR one thing, the age cutoff is totally unenforceable, and everyone knows it. And cases surface constantly in which "Grand Theft Auto" has been linked to violence and killing. In Tennessee last summer a motorist was killed and his passenger wounded when two boys - aged 14 and 16 - played "Grand Theft Auto" and then decided to go out and take sniper shots at cars, just like in the game.

<font color="#99CCFF">Well I say make it law then if it's unenforceable.
Why didn't the parent skeep an eye on what they were playing?
How did the get the game in the first place? (oh wait, unenforceable age cutoffs)
How did they get the gun!?

</font>Besides: By what preposterous reasoning can one argue that once someone turns 17 years of age it magically becomes OK to glorify mass murder? Are we saying that it would have been OK for that Beltway Sniper guy - who was apparently in his 40s - to have been allowed to play "Grand Theft Auto" before going on his killing spree, but it wouldn't have been OK for that young teenager who went along with him to have done the same?

<font color="#99CCFF">Did either of them play the game I wonder?
Probably not, else they'd have made a big deal out of it.
But wait, they went on a killing spree, but didn't play the game.

</font>Meantime, Take-Two is milking this product for all it is worth: Next year the company will even be introducing a Gameboy version of the thing, so that kids can carry it around with them wherever they go. This way they'll be able to get re-stimulated, whenever necessary, with some of the most menacing messages known to civilized man.

<font color="#99CCFF">"The thing", see it doesn't even deserve a name now.
Wait a sec, kids aren't even supposed to have the game!
If they get the game, surely it's the store's and parent's faults, but no, it's the actual video game that's marketed and aged for adults.

</font>WHAT would be left of an outfit like Take- Two Interactive if its bizarre version of digital snuff porn were outlawed?

<font color="#99CCFF">Not much, because for the majority, they make games for adults.

Not gonna quote anymore, but it does also get called ghastly.

This is worse than "killographic"

Basically I think if sotres got their act together, and parent's got off their asses and actually took notice of what their child were doing, then maybe, just maybe we wouldn't be in this situation.
I know game stores over in England enforce age restrictions, I've seen it happen, and I've been asked for ID when I was younger too (before the staff got to know me anyway - yes I buy a lot!), but I can't say about America or elsewhere. Is the age restriction really unenforceable, cause if it is, it's not really a restriction is it?

Sorry I needed a rant.
Post any comments or anything</font>

el fregadero
01-04-2004, 06:08 PM
<font color=teal>LOL at this being called "10,000 times worse than anything Michael Jackson has ever done to a little boy".</font>

loopydate
01-04-2004, 06:11 PM
</font>Besides: By what preposterous reasoning can one argue that once someone turns 17 years of age it magically becomes OK to glorify mass murder? Are we saying that it would have been OK for that Beltway Sniper guy - who was apparently in his 40s - to have been allowed to play "Grand Theft Auto" before going on his killing spree, but it wouldn't have been OK for that young teenager who went along with him to have done the same?

I hope this guy's kidding.

By this guy's logic, by what preposterous reasoning can one argue that once someone turns 21 years of age it magically becomes OK for your body to consume alcohol?

By what preposterous reasoning can one argue that once someone turns 18 years of age they magically are endowed with the necessary knowledge to make informed voting decisions?

By what preposterous reasoning can one argue that once someone turns 16 years of age they magically are mature enough to handle the responsibilities that come with driving an automobile?

This guy is so full of shit it's seeping out his ears.

[/RANT]

The Destroyer
01-04-2004, 07:31 PM
Someone I know actually sent a harshly worded e-mail to the NY Post over that article...

Jonster
01-04-2004, 07:38 PM
<font color="#99CCFF">I'm considering it...</font>

loopydate
01-04-2004, 08:34 PM
Someone I know actually sent a harshly worded e-mail to the NY Post over that article...

Good for him (or her). Sure, this thing was a column, but it had no place in a newspaper, especially not one with the reputation of the Post.

thebitch
01-05-2004, 09:35 PM
Ironically enough, that is exactly what I said in the first line of my e-mail that I sent him.

Kane Knight
01-06-2004, 05:35 PM
I think this needs to be said again, since people are still on it. Those kids who were "inspired" by GTA did not learn to operate a firearm from the game. The game did not hand them a gun. Come on, a .22 rifle's pretty easy to screw up if you don't know what you're doing, and they managed to handle it pretty well. This kinda tells you there was an influence outside the gaming world (as hard to believe as that is, I know).

Kane Knight
01-06-2004, 05:35 PM
Good for him (or her). Sure, this thing was a column, but it had no place in a newspaper, especially not one with the reputation of the Post.

The post DOESN'T have a reputation for news.

loopydate
01-06-2004, 07:11 PM
True, but it's high-profile. And there are some who do take it seriously.

Kane Knight
01-06-2004, 09:50 PM
True, but it's high-profile. And there are some who do take it seriously.

Yeah, but there are some who take the National Enquirer seriously too.

High Profile does not mean trustworthy, quality, or ensure integrity. Just look at Bill O'Reilley or Anne Coulter.

This was a very big rant, but not news. We should be used to this as Americans, since the news agencies seem to enjoy telling us what to think, rather than letting us decide for ourselves.

Meanwhile, does it matter if the age limits are enforcable or not?

Are they calling for a ban on guns? The kids got those despite age limits that ARE enforcable. Isn't that even more sobering than...GASP...A VIDEO GAME?????