|
alxK's Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (PS2)
|
| [January 25, 2012 10:38:09 PM]
|
Today marks the end of my requirement to play San Andreas. At first I was thrilled to play such an interesting game. Then as time wore on the shock value wore off. How many times could I run over people and still be amused? Even thought it was immature to giggle about picking up hookers it’s not so much fun after the first time. I think this final reflection on the game allows me to understand rewards and punishments in a game and how it affects the user. I can say that what you do in a game is similar to real life in a sense. Playing a game like Grand Theft Auto can be a metaphor for life. The shock of having so many options is overwhelming just like many college kids away from home. In the game you have to try the “bad” things like killing and prostitution. Then the amusement is gone. College is no different for many people. College kids find themselves with so many options that they have to try some of the “bad” ones, such as underage drinking. Does everyone at college try immoral things? The answer to the question is no. The same can be said for the game, not everyone will do bad things. With this in mind I will argue that games cannot make someone “bad”. Can a game make someone immoral? No, but if someone had predisposition for violence it could exaggerate it in the real world. This predisposition is not the games fault and would manifest in other ways. After I redirected my moral compass for the game I stuck to the missions. Those missions became rather boring. In the end the shock of the violence wore of and became expected. Am I desensitized to the real world? No, the violence on the news is still shocking. My values remain the same in the real world. I do not see, at least for myself, that an ethical framework of a game affecting me outside of it. Then again I am not a young child who could be more impressionable.
read comments (1)  -
add a comment 
|
| [January 24, 2012 12:00:52 PM]
|
This entry has been edited 1 time. It was last edited on Jan 24th, 2012 at 12:02:48.
read comments (1) -
add a comment
|
| [January 23, 2012 07:09:40 PM]
|
This is the first time I played San Andreas and do not normally play video games. I anticipated this game to be unstructured violence where the player can do as they please. I assumed games of this type are made so people can play out violent fantasies and nothing more. Starting from the begging and watching the story clips I was surprised to see that the game had substance. On the surface it may seem that San Andreas is a glamorization of the “Gangster Life” but in retrospect it helps bring to light the socio-economic problems in impoverished urban communities. The story line brings to mind movies like Boys in the Hood and Training Day. Even though these movies are entertaining they also raise serious questions facing urban communities. Crime, police corruption and limited opportunities are a few of the difficulties that these urban communities face. This video game can be a vehicle for showing people tribulations of crime ridden communities and individuals. From the begging it was very apparent that race would be a contentious issue throughout the game. The initial story clips show the main character CJ being harassed by the police. The officers appeared to be a mix of Black, White and Hispanic individuals. The officer in charge talked down to CJ and referred to him a “Boy” and a White officer refers to the cab driver as a “greasy Mexican”. This sets up the scene for the corrupt cops black mailing CJ. The game play was simple because instructions were on the screen and you followed the map to the objectives. In my time playing I made it to the “Barber Shop” objective. This was enough time to get a sense of the troubles facing CJ. He returns home to a tumultuous situation for his family and gang. It appears that the main character is torn between his “clean” lifestyle and a sense of obligation. He values his family and friends and the environment around him becomes the dictator of his life choices. It becomes easy to identify that the unethical actions CJ must perform are based on ideas he feels are valuable. Kant would be quick to classify CJ’s actions as immoral. It makes it difficult for me to fully adapt Kant’s rigid criteria of right and wrong since he does not take into account any situational factors. CJ is defending his family, friends and honor and this must seem like a duty to him. This reflection makes it difficult to make a right and wrong argument for “gangbanging”.
add a comment
|
