|
KDIESBER's Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (PC)
|
| [January 17, 2010 01:46:51 PM]
|
After dealing with the drug dealers I rode back to the Johnson house to begin my next mission. This next mission entailed the quartet of CJ, Big Smoke, Sweet, and Ryder simply pulling through a Cluckin' Bell drive through to order some food. A topic I would like to focus on in this portion of my playthrough is the portrayal of Big Smoke. While all the other characters in the car order a meal deal, Big Smoke orders more than one. If he had only ordered, say, two meal deals there would be little to discuss, but stating that Big Smoke ordered "more than one" meal deal is a bit of an understatement. Ordering "two number nines, a number nine large, a number six with extra dip, a number seven, two number forty fives, one with cheese, and a large soda" it becomes evident that Big Smoke loves to eat. However, Big Smoke's obsession with food doesn't end there. Soon CJ (myself) and company find themselves involved in a drive-by and I am instructed to chase the opposing gang car. While I drive Sweet and Ryder grab their submachine guns and begin to assault the enemy automobile. Big Smoke on the other hand continues to revel in his meal as he eats without bothering to open fire on the attacking vehicle. All through the mission CJ, Sweet, and Ryder attempt to convince Smoke to put down his food and start shooting, but by the time I complete the mission the trio are able to finish off the enemy before Big Smoke can act. It is probably safe to assume that this mission was intended only for comedic relief by Rockstar, but I find it important to analyze the character of Big Smoke as a stereotype. Portrayed as an African American who only loves to eat, it is probably safe to say that he fits into the category of a stereotype like the final piece in a puzzle. Even outside of Smoke being a stereotype, it was still troublesome for the player (me) as you are shown he cares more about stuffing his face then the well being of his comrades in arm. Is this derogatory representation of Smoke justified in any way? Of course a good book, film, or videogame always contains some form of comic relief to make the audience laugh a little, however, at the expense of strengthening the view of an African American as a glutton it is debatable whether the aforementioned mission was truly necessary to include in the game as it could arguably be promoting said stereotype. So, we could ask, was this scene moral to include in the game? A Utilitarian might argue that the mission spread a vast amount of pleasure throughout the various people playing Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas by making them laugh, as well as the fact it is only a game in which no one was truly hurt. But others, especially in the African American community, might argue that it is offensive to their race, ethnicity, and culture, and promotes an unfair and unwanted portrayal of an African American in the media. There is logical reasoning for both sides of the argument on the necessity of having this mission in the game, so the question of whether having "Drive-thru" included in the final release of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas being suitably proper or not is, in my opinion at least, morally debatable.
Following on our discussion of stereotypes the following mission again reveals another negative stereotype of African Americans. This mission involves Big Smoke and CJ "strapping up" by going to visit the home of someone called Emmet to grad a few guns. While driving over to the objective point I had personally expected Emmet to be your stereotypical shady arms dealer, but I was sorely proven wrong. Emmet is, to put it slightly, not the brightest tool in the shed. As soon as I am introduced to Emmet through a cutscene his character becomes quite clear. Accidently misfiring a pistol, Emmet becomes startled as he mistakenly believes that he is under fire from someone else nearby. Turning around, Emmet, while holding a gun to Big Smoke and CJ, questions the two and accidently mistakes CJ for Brian claiming "Aren't you Beverly Johnson's boy?" to which CJ replies "that's right," and Emmet retorts "Brian, say, uh, ain, ain't you dead?" CJ responds by stating "No Emmet, the other one, Carl." "Obsh, Sorry 'bout Beverly," Emmet finishes. This portrayal of Emmet as an uneducated, grown, African American is nothing short of a stereotype. It can also be said that his character, much like the previous mission, was included for comedic purposes only without trying to offend anyone. We, the player, can once again question Emmet's inclusion in GTA: San Andreas as justified, or unnecessary. Again, this scene was sure to pick up a few laughs and giggles by the player as it was meant to, but some members of the African American community would surely argue that the inclusion of Emmet in the game only promotes the inescapable stereotype of African Americans being uneducated, slow, and dimwitted. So, was the inclusion of Emmet justified for comedic relief? Or, was his presence merely a trigger for promoting such a derogatory viewing of the black community around the world wherever Grand Theft Auto is played? Logically, there is reasoning for both sides of the argument, so whether Emmet's inclusion in the game is morally ethical could be considered debatable.
Finally, the last mission I managed to accomplish through my playthrough was "Drive-By." As the title of the next objective leaves little to the imagination, I found it rather obvious what my next task would entail. Simply put, the entire mission involved CJ (me) driving the quartet around Balla territory while continually gunning down Balla gang members. After killing all the gang members, the wanted level rose to two stars, meaning the police would send out more reinforcements than usual to arrest me. After frantically making my way to the next checkpoint the player was instructed to park the car into a spray shop to evade the police, and complete the objective by simply driving home. With this mission we are left to ask one gargantuan moral question, was our gunning down opposing gang members morally ethical? Using logic, our actions were really not justified in any sense. Seeing as how our lives were in absolutely zero danger, there appears to be little logical reasoning to support randomly hunting and gunning down Balla gang members when they provided no such incentive for us to do so. In short, this mission involved simply gunning down opposing gangsters for no logical reasoning, therefore our actions appear to be ethically immoral.
read comments (1)  -
add a comment 
|
| [January 16, 2010 11:46:19 PM]
|
Starting where I left off I proceeded to accomplish the next mission set out before me, titled "Tagging Up Turf." However, it's not the mission itself I will be focusing on, but an action I accidently made while progressing through it. "Tagging Up Turf" involves Carl riding around town and spraying graffiti on top of Balla graffiti as a sign of possession of territory. However, as I was prepared to write over the second mark of graffiti I accidently sprayed my can in the direction of a nearby police officer. At first I didn't recognize the officer as a policeman, but as soon as I saw my wanted level rise and watch him pull out his pistol, I knew I was in trouble. At first I attempted to escape and decrease my wanted level, however, since I was in the middle of completing a mission I found it was easier said than done. Being continuously shot and losing health fast I knew I had to act quickly. What course of action did I take next? I beat the police officer down to keep him off of me permanently. He dropped his riot club and pistol so, seeing as how I was unarmed and knew I would need some form of a weapon latter on in the game, I stole his armament. I completed the mission as quickly as I could and zoomed off by hopping into Sweet's car. A question I asked myself afterwards was, was my course of action ethically moral? Although such a situation would have never occurred in real life, it is still important to examine whether my actions contained some form of logical reasoning. Was I given an opportunity to profess my honest mistake? Was I given even a remote chance to tell the truth? The answer to the questions above is no, I was not given one chance to defend my actions. So, after failing for any attempt at reasoning with the officer I strived to run and evade him. Did I attempt to solve the situation without having to resort to violence? The answer to the aforementioned question is yes, I did. However, I was still being followed and continually assaulted. Seeing as how I was running low on options I resorted to my final course of action, violently beating the pulp out of the arm of the law. Was my action logically justified? It could be argued, that it possibly was. Seeing as how I was innocent and unable to explain myself as well as trying to calm the situation down, I resorted to my last possible course of action to protect my life, killing the cop. Could it be argued that this situation represents Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas promoting cop slaying? Logically, it cannot as the mechanics of the game did not present the player (myself) with a fair negotiation option to attempt to explain my accidental skirmish and avoid the whole misunderstanding.
After "tagging up" the town I was able to move onto the next mission "Cleaning the Hood." In "Cleaning the hood" CJ and Ryder attempt to "get the homies back together," however all is not well with the "homies" as CJ soon realizes that one of his former friends, "Big Bear," alluded to as a tough guy, is revealed to be a sniveling crack addict working as a slave to earn his score. Shocked by what their friend has been reduced to CJ and Ryder roll around the streets and beat up random drug dealers to prevent other similar situations from happening. Was CJ's and Ryder's actions logically ethical? The audience is shown firsthand the terrible consequences that crack can do to a person by the example of Big Bear. CJ spoke ever so highly of Big Bear, as a god amongst men claiming "Oh! Big Bear? Yeah, them base slangers going to be sorry now." However, CJ's memory of Big Bear was proven to be a thing of the past as, thanks to the circulation of crack throughout CJ's neighborhood, Big Bear had been reduced to a severely addicted junkie as you see him twitching and scratching himself all over, working as a part time slave just to score a small dose of coke. CJ and Ryder reasoned that through eliminating potential drug dealers they could be saving a few of their "homies" from such a terrible fate. By holding these dealers accountable for their deeds, CJ and Ryder felt that they were just in their actions, even if it was through a violent methodology. Were CJ's and Ryder's intentions in the right place? The answer would be yes as CJ and Ryder were only dispensing their own brand of justice due to the lack of a legal presence in the area, as well as wanting to save their other friends and comrades from a similar fate as Big Bear. Were their actions necessary? Could other alternative methods have been employed? The answer to the latter is highly unlikely due to the violent nature of the drug dealing business, therefore the answer to the former is debatable. Whether such violence should ever be carried out unless absolutely necessary is typically answered with a stern no, in the town of Ganton violence is the only language spoken, therefore CJ and Ryder were left with little other options to go about their plan to rid Ganton of unwanted drug dealers. We are therefore led back to our first question of whether the duo's actions were logically ethical, in which case we could possibly claim yes. As the "rules of the street" being the premier governing body of Ganton, CJ and Ryder did what they felt they had to do to save their fellow man from the terrible fate of being an addicted junkie, by any means necessary.
add a comment
|
| [January 15, 2010 11:50:49 PM]
|
The Game, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, starts out with a very somber attitude as Carl "CJ" Johnson is called back home by his brother, "Sweet", as Carl is informed that his mother has passed away. Unfortunately for Carl he receives a less than warm welcome by Los Santo's corrupt police officers as he is framed for a crime he did not commit. Stripped of his possessions, he is dumped off by the police officers on a side street in, what we figure out shortly, is the territory to Carl's former rival gang, the Ballas. The player is set forth given a bike and an objective point for which he can head towards, but outside of these options the player is free to do as he pleases. The introduction itself is certainly ripe for discussion as an ethical act. Although it is possible for an Act-Utilitarian to disagree about the morality of the action of the police officers, where they could argue that the most amount of happiness was spread between the police officers at CJ's expense, therefore the officer's actions being perfectly moral, a more viable ethical theory, Rule-Utilitarianism, would argue otherwise. A Rule-Utilitarian would argue that as the police officers had falsely incriminated and stole monetary value from CJ, both actions being illegal, the police officer's actions would be immoral as CJ was unjustly mistreated and the police officers had broken their promise/oath to uphold the law. Even if the police officers had enjoyed a considerable amount of pleasure from torturing CJ, their ineptitude to uphold the law as well as breaking a promise towards all the citizens they represent would imply that the act itself was immoral as great pleasure was lost on behalf of the entire public.
Having played a few computer games beforehand it was relatively simple for me to jump right into Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and not have to muddle with the controls too much. I decide to follow the marker the game provided to the first objective. Once at the destination the player is introduced to "Big Smoke." Big Smoke, a rotund African American, mistakes our protagonist, CJ, for an intruder, and threatens to beat him with a baseball bat. However, after all the misunderstanding is cleared, the player is shown that the two are actually old acquaintances, and proceed to the graveyard to visit CJs brother. Once at the graveyard we are introduced to a plethora of other characters, most notably CJ's brother Sweet. From this cutscene we are given some slight insight into Carl's and Sweet's relationship, which has apparently gone south since the death of their brother Brian, which is hinted at that CJ had some involvement with but of how much the audience is left in the dark. After the cutscene CJ, Sweet, Big Smoke, and Ryder are caught off guard by a drive-by shooting and thereafter chased by the rival gang, the Ballas. The player's objective is to get away from the rival gang's car on bike. Pedaling along I attempted to try and keep up with CJ's "homies," but I found myself continually crashing into cars and poles by either going too slow or too fast. Surprisingly, I found that this section of the game could possibly teach a valuable ethical lesson. Playing from the perspective of CJ we, the player, are shown how truly horrifying it is to be on the other end of a drive-by as an unarmed bystander. Having nothing but our fragile bicycles to make a getaway with, we were forced to flee like rats against the tiger that was the Ballas in their large, protected, automobile that could crush us at any instance. If the car didn't kill us, it would certainly be the cornucopia of weapons that they had at their disposal. This perception of violence from the viewpoint of the bystander helps to put the player through the shoes of someone else in the same circumstances in a real life situation. If someone wished to imitate such an act in real life they might possibly stop to ask themselves, what if it were me as the potential target? How scared and defenseless would I feel? I partially know what it feels like, so do I really want to put someone else through the same experience?
Eventually I was able to complete the mission and managed to move on to a new objective. This next cutscene in particular certainly merits some discussion. Here we are given a more thorough introduction to one of the main characters of San Andreas, Ryder, who could certainly be considered a black stereotype. Ryder's style consists of a green coat, a crimson red cap, sunglasses, a black mustache, and typically smoking a cigarette. At first there seems to be little concern for any attention, however, it is Ryder's dialogue that really brings his character into spotlight. Ryder's first cutscene of true dialogue consists of the words "Nigga," "homie,""fo sho" (for sure), "crackin," "shit," "fucking," "You down," and "Let's go bitch," all stereotypical African American slang. Here we can see a huge amount of where the criticism for GTA stems from. This African American stereotype presents a poor portrayal of race and ethnicity for the black community. Whether or not the game deserves to be in the hands of someone below the age of eighteen is not the question we should be presented with. The question instead should be is if San Andreas were in the hands of, let us assume a ten year old as it is always possible that it will come through in some act or another, what kind of impact would this dialogue have on them? What kind of social environment is the child surrounded by that would affect his perception of Ryder's stereotype? Would this child be experienced enough with the American media to know that such a character is only a stereotype, or would this be their first and only portal into the culture of African American's? If this was their first time, how would they thereafter perceive African Americans in the real world? This ethical question of what would happen if such a scenario occurred must be accounted for as, whether GTA should ever be in the hands of a ten year old in the first place is a different ethical question entirely, it is always within the realm of possibility.
read comments (1) -
add a comment
|
|
|
 |
KDIESBER's Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (PC)
|
|
Current Status: Playing
GameLog started on: Friday 15 January, 2010
|
|
