Monday 26 July, 2010

I woke up today and played a few more missions of the game and as I played I thought about the controversy of the game has sparked so much criticism from many different sects and groups of people, ranging from parents to politicians. I thought about the violence that is necessary for successful game-play. There are many missions that can be accomplished without killing people; however, many of the those missions promote other behavior that is not commendable such as drug deals; vandalizing public property; or advancing in the hierarchy of the local gang. As I focused on the violence that is always accessible I also thought about how there is a balance of corrective action toward the violence. The more sinister you allow Carl to be, as in all GTA games, the more that his enemies and the police will come after him. I thought that this is very interesting because the game allows you to do whatever you want while at the same time you will have to endure the consequences of every deviant action.

Good point that a lot of people overlook. Arguably there are limits to those consequences (lose your weapons and start over), but similarly, there are limits to the consequences of your destruction. The city itself has a short attention span so that your evil acts themselves have limited effects.