|
kohbruce's Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (PC)
|
| [January 20, 2009 11:27:18 PM]
|
On my final time playing GTA:SA, I tried to act morally. I started off down the street and quickly decided this was too slow. So I decided to hop a cab. Now I know in this game you steal cars, but I figured if I walked up to the back door of the cab, I'd be able to get in and maybe pick a destination. I was wrong. Although my character was clearly positioned in front of the back door, when I pressed the action button, he automatically repositioned himself in by the front passenger door, opened it, and threw the cab driver out on the street. I drove off, and then noticed that the screen was telling me that I could start cab missions by pressing a button. Interested in some work that didn't involve crime, although one could not access this work without first committing the crime of grand theft auto, I pressed the button and picked up my first fare. The game told me that my tip decreased the longer I took to get the fare to his destination, and so, of course, I drove as fast as I possibly could, as this is what the game is encouraging. The car didn't handle very well, and I ended up running over a few pedestrians along the way, causing the police to take notice. I tried to outrun the police but eventually my car was wrecked, and I was forced to crawl out. The police, rather than trying to apprehend me, were shooting at me, and so, in the interest of self-preservation, grabbed a police motorcycle and drove off.
The situation basically escalated further in the manner described above, ending in many pedestrian deaths, and the deaths of a few police officers. This situation illustrated clearly to me how easy it was to do immoral things, such as run over pedestrians, steal cars, and cause general mayhem, and how hard it was to do any moral things, such as complete an honest day's work as a cab driver. In fact, it is impossible to do these moral actions without first doing something immoral. Having played through a good portion of the story-line, I know that CJ is a "good" gangster who takes out the "bad" gangsters in the city. In a twisted sense, CJ is moral in his ends, as he seeks punishment for the murderers of his mother, but he is extremely immoral in his means.
Still, as much criticism as this game receives for encouraging and rewarding immoral behavior, it seems to me that the game world is enough removed from reality to keep gamers aware that the consequences for such actions in the real world are harsh. There's just not much about Grand Theft Auto that is realistic, and while the themes presented in the game would conceivably be damaging to a you mind, the game IS rated for those 17 and older. Still, the argument can be made that because the game treats immorality so lightly, it could lead to the gamer becoming desensitized to such issues. I see where this argument comes from, I just really don't think GTA:SA is realistic enough to accomplish this.
read comments (1)  -
add a comment 
|
| [January 20, 2009 06:22:03 PM]
|
On my second time playing San Andreas, I tried to continue on the mission path, which led me on a short ride with CJ's old friend, Ryder. It was very basic, having me drive from Ryder's house to the barber-shop, where I then paid for a haircut. This was all very normal, and within society's regulations. I acted morally, in that I paid for my haircut, instead of attempting to run out after it was finished. It's interesting to me that, in light of all the other crime's a player can commit as CJ, you can't run out after your haircut without paying. The mission continues with Ryder unexpectedly trying to hold up a fast food restaurant and failing, resulting in CJ and Ryder having to run for their lives. This brought me to another aspect of GTA that I found interesting: I sped on the way back, which is immoral in that I am endangering others and breaking the law. In the GTA world, however, I noticed that speeding is not against the law. Unless you hit a pedestrian or a cop car, you will not be harassed by the police. I feel that this unrealistic depiction of the law serves to distance the Grand Theft Auto world from the real world, consequently transforming what would be serious crimes in the real world into the events of a normal day. I think on my third time playing, I will attempt to depart from the storyline and attempt act morally and find good deeds to do.
add a comment
|
| [January 19, 2009 10:21:13 PM]
|
Today I played Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas for thirty minutes, with an eye open to the moral implications throughout the opening bit of plotline you are forced to sit through. I wasn't even a few minutes into the first cutscene when the main charachter, Carl Johnson, or CJ, was pulled over by a squad car filled with three cops. Two of the cops jumped out with weapons drawn, clear overkill for what should be a routine stop. Stranger still, it was CJ who was in trouble, not the driver of the cab. The officers frisked CJ, confiscated the money he was carrying, which he claimed was his own, and "helped" him into the back seat. I put helped in quotes because they purposely bang CJ's head against the doorframe as he is getting in, asking him to watch his head. In the car, they begin to harass CJ and eventually black-mail him, showing him a weapon they have that has just been used in the murder of another officer, and claiming it is CJ's gun. CJ of course denies it, as he has just arrived in the city, and it would be impossible for him to have murdered an officer. It is made clear in this situation that CJ is being blackmailed, and will be called upon when the officers want his assistance in some matter. To make matters worse, CJ is dropped off in the territory of a gang that is an enemy to the gang he belonged to five years ago. Now, CJ is proposed with a dilemma. In front of CJ is a bicycle, an instrument that would offer him a quicker departure from dangerous, life-threatening territory. The bike, however, is not his. While this is not mentioned in the game, we know the bike is not CJ's as CJ has just gotten off of a plane with no bike. The game instructs CJ to take the bike. I tried first to not take the bike, as this would be theft, and morally wrong. However, the game did even allow me to control the camera view at this point, forcing me to look in only one direction, regardless of which way I faced. It wasn't until I stole the bike and begin to ride it away that I was able to control my viewpoint, an aspect of the game that is critical to success. I found it interesting that the game's functionality did not even reach a fully operable level until a crime, however small, was committed. Stealing that bike is critical to playing GTA:SA, which, to me, says something about what the developers feel taking the bike represents. The act of theft is treated so lightly that clearly the developers must feel that it is a minor act of immorality when faced with the impending doom of an enemy gang spotting CJ. However, the fact that I was not able to choose to go it on foot was somewhat annoying to me. I was not even able to choose for CJ to be a moral character from the get-go. In a way, in light of today's discussion on Kantianism, I felt that my rationality was ignored, with the developers having made the decision that theft is critical to my survival, while I felt that I could make it back to safety on foot, avoiding any moral lapses. While I could go into further detail of why this stealing of the bike might be justified (CJ was wronged himself by being harassed and put in danger by the corrupt cops, and so his misdeed to save himself doesn't seem so harmful), or why it might be considered wrong (it doesn't account for the feelings/rights of whoever's bike this may be), what seemed most important to me was that I was not given an option to avoid stealing the bike. It seems CJ's path towards immorality is already written, and that Grand Theft Auto is not a game of moral choices but a game designed to tell the story of someone living a life of crime. Then again, was there ever any question as to what the purpose of the game was, given the title? It just seems to me that I've heard the argument before in support of the game that you're never forced to be "bad". It seems, in fact, that you are, if you wish to play the game with any sort of functionality.
add a comment
|
