 |
|
Oct 3rd, 2008 at 19:26:59 - Grand Theft Auto - San Andreas (PS2) |
In terms of moral values, there’s really nothing in GTA that promotes any sort of value in a positive light. There’s no compassion, as you as the player must shoot and kill those who are shooting at you. Loyalty as a virtue is presented, though to stay loyal to your family and your gang, you sometimes must kill and hijack cars to protect your ‘turf.’ Even then, the value isn’t presented as something you’d want to do, but as something you ought to do; and this follows the theory of virtue ethics. The player/Carl may not want to kill and steal for loyalty. Though at that point, it’s your option to choose a different game.
Looking at another value, justice, it’s easy to say that justice is certainly a theme in GTA. Police officers try to bring you to justice after you’ve shot people (though not for driving erratically). Your missions consist of using graffiti to block marks tagged by other gangs, and in some cases killing the rival members count as justice in San Andreas. Justice is presented in two different lights, though both can easily be described as ‘justice.’ One is the justice of the law that the police officers try and uphold. The other is the player’s/Carl’s own cultural justice which consists mostly of revenge. You could almost argue that Carl’s version of justice would just a misunderstanding of cultures, which would lead to cultural relativism. Though since that’s not a working theory, plus there’s the fact that it butts heads with Social Contract theory (which says there should be a set of rules dictating how people treat each other as long as everyone else follows said rules). Though San Andreas is fictional, I doubt the laws would say that any and all people are prime bullet targets and cars are free for the taking.
The game is difficult to get into because of the gameplay layout. I’ve been a gamer my whole life, and this was one of the more irritating games I’ve played. A map of the town is provided, though very little of use is labeled. I drove around for fifteen minutes trying to find my next mission and managed to find two tattoo parlors, a fast food chicken restaurant, and some property I couldn’t afford instead. Given the lack of information presented plus the extreme violence in the game, I’m surprised it’s as popular as it is. The tidbits of realism that are in the game just aren’t enough to make me want to keep playing it.
add a comment  - read this GameLog  |
|
Sep 29th, 2008 at 21:11:01 - Grand Theft Auto - San Andreas (PS2) |
We meet the main character, an African-American man named Carl Johnson, in an airport as he’s coming back home upon hearing of his mother’s death. Several stereotypes are immediately put forth: he gets arrested on the way home from the airport—none of the officers are African-American, his home is in the poorer part of town, simply reinforcing the ‘ghetto’ stereotype. His house is run-down, he used to be in a gang, and his neighbors curse like pirates and smoke various substances.
At one point, players are involved in a drive-by shooting that they must escape via bikes. As I was pedaling, I decided that this mode of transportation was getting me/Carl nowhere fast, as I had already been sent to the hospital once. So I hijacked a car instead and came to my first real ethical quandary: Do I keep pedaling to save my life, or do I steal another’s car to have a better chance to save my life? Ethically, I believe it’s better to take another person’s car if it means you’ll have a better chance of not getting shot dead. Stealing the car won’t prove that you won’t get shot, but you’ll surely have a better chance of outrunning the pursuers who are also in vehicles. It’s rather Rule Utilitarian in that the benefits outweigh the harms, making it morally acceptable. The harms include: taking the property of another, physically yanking that person out of their car and risking injury to them. You could even say it emotionally harms the pedestrians witnessing the violent hijacking. The benefits though: me/Carl having a much better chance of not getting killed, outweigh the harms. If doing this act would save one life, then it is worth taking the car.
This dilemma also goes against Rule Utilitarianism in that this is an exceptional circumstance, and as me/Carl stealing the vehicle doesn’t benefit everyone, the rules shouldn’t be overthrown for this one case.
I see the appeal in this game in that it feels very ‘real.’ By real I mean that it’s the player’s job to see that Carl has enough energy and stamina to do the missions. He needs to eat to maintain energy, but if he eats too much he gets fat and that’s well documented in the Stats tab on the screen, along with Respect and Sex Appeal. These are apparently going to be valuable later in GTA.
There aren’t many values presented in the game just yet. One I can name would be the respect issue, where by completing missions you can gain respect among your peers and earn Stat points. This sounds fine and innocent, however these missions include being involved in drive-by shootings by rival gangs and driving around your friend who likes to rob pizza stores.
Overall, I think GTA deserves the ‘M’ rating it has; for the swearing alone if for nothing else.
read comments (1)  - add a comment - read this GameLog |
|
|
 |
| Hazmat24's GameLogs |
|
Hazmat24 has been with GameLog for 16 years, 1 month, and 22 days |
view feed xml
|
| Entries written to date: 6 |
|
