|
Hazmat24's Grand Theft Auto - San Andreas (PS2)
|
| [October 5, 2008 05:11:29 PM]
|
Despite my rant on gameplay in the last entry, I’m only one person and the majority of the gaming world obviously doesn’t feel the way I do on the less than great gameplay layout. Taking a look at the ethical choices one has to make: should I or should I not steal this car?, If I kill this person, I’ll get respect points but I’ll also run the risk of getting killed by his gang—what to do? The list goes on. The game leaves no other option for you that is plausible besides violence. I mean, sure I could walk to my next mission and burn out all my stamina, but why do that when there’s plenty of hijackable cars being driven down the road? I could outrun the police and hide until they leave me alone, but then what would be the use of this pistol I’m carrying? GTA forces the player into a mindset to cater to our inner criminal mafia personality.
Within ten minutes of gameplay I found myself absorbed in the story and having to think like a criminal to get what I wanted. In the real world I’d never hijack a car, and when I sat down to play the game it didn’t occur to me at first to do so. I was given a mission and a map and that was all. I half-expected to be given another bike and as I/Carl started walking I noticed all the cars flying past me. “Hey, this is GTA, what am I walking for?” I thought. I stood next to the nearest driver door, engaged in a brief bout of button mashing and I was soon the new owner of a stolen vehicle.
I’ve heard the occasional news story of someone killing another in real life claiming the crime was inspired by GTA, and I don’t doubt it. This is the kind of game that gives video games a bad name. Parents and politicians are in arms over games like this, where the main reason to play is to kill and commit crime and do drugs, etc. I don’t blame them, I wouldn’t want my ten or fourteen year old playing this. I felt more annoyed and violent only after playing for an hour. Even if I didn’t notice the effects of the violence immediately, I think those images and feelings would stay with me whether I realized it or not and possibly manifest themselves in other ways. I don’t think that these types of GTA/M-rated games should be made illegal, but I also thing the access to the public should be really limited. By that I mean there should be tighter laws that would prevent kids from getting GTA; ‘should’ being the operative word—the chances of tougher laws realistically being put into effect are small. Ultimately I think the responsibility lies with the concerned parents to be techno-savvy and learn to monitor what their children play.
read comments (1)  -
add a comment 
|
| [October 3, 2008 07:26:59 PM]
|
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
|
| [September 29, 2008 09:11:01 PM]
|
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
|
