Topic: Rockstar has a new game called IV

[GoldenPhoenix]

Let me be crystal clear here, I do enjoy sandbox style games but I hate how people put the GTA series on a pedestal and defend many of the choices from Rockstar as "inspired" instead of put in for shock value. That is why I like Saint's Row, and even Godfather, the games nor its fan base pretend that they are trying to show some "godly" respect to cinema they are based on. They are crafted to be fun first with story elements put in for those who wish to achieve it, they have their elements which are placed in solely for shock value and "coolness", especially Saints Row. But guess what neither the fans nor the developers are trying to twist it to make it sound like there was some divine purpose to it.

[oohhboy]

Saints Row has so much unintentional comedy in it. The plot's a joke, the voice acting wooden. The physics engine inspires God to play dice.

When I played it I pretty much ignored the main plot. I was way too busy finding the next bug or idiot moment. I mean load up a hummer full of home boys and drive into a gang war. Absolute frame rate killing mayhem. Also RPGing helos. Satire at it's finest.

[Kairon]

If Rockstar had such a need to replicate or show homage to these crime movies, the best way to attain that would be through a structured game, that is if their only concern was as you say "shock value their cinematic sources have", then they would be much more straightforward.

I agree. That's why in an earlier post, though not the one you quote, I point out that Rockstar is stuck between two possible contradictory ideals: the cinematic experience, and the simulation sandbox experience. I see both as results of western game tastes: the desires to replicate big-screen spectacles... but also leverage simulation technology to create "un-cinematic" virtual reality freedom. This contrast is what leads to the possible disconnect behind the story drive in most free-roaming sandbox games and the actual gameplay suggested by sandbox-style freedoms.

So the point isn't that people are getting killed in these movies which are most definitely related to the game. The point is that in GTA IV, there's the added layer of simulated free agency that the videogames, and the sandbox genre, bring to the table. The GTA games may be inspired by movies, but that's only half the story. The other half of the story is how western-style free-agency in games, along with simulation of urban environments, almost offers an opportunity to magnify the violence and acts beyond what the strictly narrated, director-controlled films do. (In fact, a prototypical sort of this real-life-situation-free-roaming game design thinking can be seen in DMA's (Rockstar North's) Body Harvest for the N64.)

Oh yeah, and take another look at Mortal Kombat. That game definitely had cinematic inspiration: a throw-back to cheesy kung-fu flicks that has been lodged in American consciousness ever since the hey-day of Bruce Lee. That's obviously not everything about the game, but don't discount the effect it had on it.

How many cinematic sources have the protagonist murdering cops, killing hookers, and hijacking cars by the butt load and running over civilians. Even some of the most brutal crime movies like Scarface didn't go near the levels that the GTA series has went.

Hookers are a convenient target in underworld movies aren't they? I mean, Eastern promises revolved around figuring out why a pregnant one was killed. A hooker's death in Godfather 2 was just the starting point for blackmail. And Taxi Driver had all the psychotic violence of a GTA game... though Jodi Foster's character was actually a beneficiary instead of a victim of the violence. You mention ScarFace, but that was one of their direct inspirations for GTA:Vice City (see quotes below). And yes, these are tamer than the acts in GTA, but I've addressed that above: that's a function of the sandbox-simulation-freedom, the other main push of western design tastes.

So at least since GTA III, Rockstar has drawn an excess of information from movies and the pop culture surrounding them. There are loads of movie touchstones, just read these excerpts from a Wired article:

For the young Brits weaned on Run DMC and The Warriors, it was a revelation.
...
Dan Houser assumed the creative reins, writing game dialog and directing star-studded voice-over sessions. Sam Houser, president and executive producer, played the charismatic visionary. He hung a poster in his office of Don Simpson, the infamous playboy producer of films like Flashdance and Top Gun.
...
Grand Theft Auto: Vice City would be a fun-house-mirror version of Florida circa 1986, drawing on TV’s Miami Vice, the film Scarface, and other ’80s iconography.
...
Voice-overs featured talent like Dennis Hopper as a seedy porn film director, Burt Reynolds as a corrupt land baron, and Philip Michael Thomas as the treacherous sidekick of the protagonist, voiced by Ray Liotta. Porn star Jenna Jameson recorded dialog for the aptly named character Candy Suxxx.
...
San Andreas is set on the West Coast in the early ’90s. The action takes place in a Boyz n the Hood-style LA, an ersatz Bay Area complete with Haight-Ashbury hippies, and a glitzy Las Vegas.

http://www.wired.com/gaming/gamingreviews/news/2007/03/FF_160_rockstar?currentPage=1

Rockstar has built a reputation on pushing boundaries in gaming, and not "cinematic" boundaries.

I totally agree that Rockstar has benefitted from, and even encouraged, shock and controversy. They've been pushing buttons and boundaries ever since the beginning. But to merely label them as controversial and obsessed with titillation is to remain only at the surface of the issue. We have to move past nominal fallacy and try to trace the evolution of the GTA series, design-wise, inspiration-wise, culture-wise.

I contend that Rockstar isn't practicing original chauvinism, but instead, having drawn so heavily from a culture steeped in violence, harsh gender roles, and the virtual reality to explore that, they're instead explicitly recycling old ...well... "poisons"... under new and more powerful mechanisms.

[KnowsNothing]

Wow. Have you played any previous "sandbox" games like Godfather, Scarface, or Saint's Row?

The closest thing I've played would be Oblivion, which I begrudgingly enjoy.  I thought I would really love exploring the city in GTAIV and whatnot, but it's kind of...boring, I guess.  I think it'll pick up though once I get further into the story.

[GoldenPhoenix]

"Hookers are a convenient target in underworld movies aren't they? I mean, Eastern promises revolved around figuring out why a pregnant one was killed. A hooker's death in Godfather 2 was just the starting point for blackmail."

And what is the underlying message? That killing hookers is NOT a good thing and has consequences, yet GTA does not have ANY consequences in killing people, especially in regards to the story. The only consequence you have is if the cops come after you and you bribe them, or you die and magically end up in a hospital.

I don't want to go into all your points, but GTA appears to be a series where the sand-box gameplay is the focus and the story is pretty secondary beyond perhaps inspiring a basic design of the city. Cannot comment on Taxi Driver since I have not seen the movie (I may try to get it though since I love Robert Dinaro). What is most telling about Rockstar not being this great genius in cinematic gameplay is that virtually every other game they've developed has been average to bad, they've only been able to succeed with the GTA series and that series garnered popularity not from its story but its open world. I really doubt many of the GTA fans know or really care about any relation its story elements may have to movies, they just like how cool it is and what all you can do in the city. And like many fanbois, they cannot notice the fact that the so-called clones have advanced the genre since GTA3 yet Rockstar seems stuck, and even taking some steps back.

[Dirk Temporo]

Everyone but you is wrong, m i rite?

[Kairon]

Well, videogames create their own morality. Animal Crossing turns players into materialists basically. GTA is... an almost anarchic society?

[D_Average]

I still can't believe Hillary Goldstein from IGN said the acting was "Oscar Worthy".

[GoldenPhoenix]

Everyone but you is wrong, m i rite?

That is funny coming from someone like yourself who does nothing but insult people constantly who don't agree with you, with foul and immature language. The odd thing is I recall you saying that if you don't think GTAIV is the best GTA game that you must have something "against" it. Talk about "Everyone is wrong but you".  So please, go back in your hole. Don't worry though I don't expect a decent debate with you, so don't take it too personally. Watch how Kairon and I debate, you may actually learn something about being somewhat civil.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Well, videogames create their own morality. Animal Crossing turns players into materialists basically. GTA is... an almost anarchic society?

So you'd be ok with a child porn simulator? If you want to use the argument that it is ok for games to create their own morality, then you'd be fine with one that maybe glorifies the child porn industry? That is the slippery slope, that I'd rather not slide down.

One thing I would love to see in GTA and other games of it kind is more connection between your actions in the open-world and the plot. This IMO, would show more respect for crime films because most of those films have an underlying theme of how the protagonist's actions do stay with him, and can affect his overall destiny. If you truly wanted to show the utmost respect for these films wouldn't that be a brilliant (and engaging) way to feel more involved with the story and how it turns out? Some of the sandbox games have tinkered with a morality system of sorts, but it is still wide open for a developer to knock it out of the park while maintaining some cohesion with a great story.

Anyway to show that I do respect Kairon's points, I do think he makes a good point about GTA's satire, I think some of it is brilliant (especially the radio shows), but I do think some stuff in the series for no other reason than to add something cool and shocking. Also Kairon makes a fair point about the game being two different halves, but I think they can do more to bring them together. To show that yes, my opinion is imperfect, I apologize for being presumptuous regarding some of Kairon's points, and mistakenly misinterpreted them.

Oh yeah, because I like beating this point to death. I still stick with Rockstar being quite sexist, because I don't recall any of their games that have a strong female character much less a female lead (I don't recall though what State of Emergency had in the way of characters, so I MAY be wrong about that title).

P.S. If I misinterpreted your point on morality in gaming, please correct me.

[Kairon]

Everyone but you is wrong, m i rite?

Were you talking to me? Why yes, yes you're right! ^_^

But seriously. I think you're actually right GP, and that your point still stands that Rockstar has the opportunity to really lead with the genre, but so far I don't know if they have. Obviously GTA IV is a quality title, but all of my arguments are just explanations at best, and excuses at worst. Rockstar has spearheaded this sand-box world... but it's still static and an inflexibly constant setting where there are no interesting moral choices, no ways for players to fill out or break out the manifest destiny that the creator has specified for them.

I don't mean to say that being in a videogame makes different moral systems ok, but that morals inside the game are removed from the real world... except in the implied message that the developers are sending. So yes, I do believe that Rockstar games is responsible for considering the moral structures they're sending in the game, and moral feedback in games are going to become a much bigger feedback not because of public outrage, but because that is a natural direction for sandbox-freedom design to go: a flexible world that responds to you even though your actions are your own.

I think you're right GP in that other developers have already started to make more inroads here while Rockstar has stood still. Bioware is obviously prominent with Mass Effect, the RPG The Witcher tried to give delayed moral feedback too. (The Witcher also had prostitues you could hook up with... go figure. Maybe sordid worlds are a naturally itneresting setting for sandbox games?)

[GoldenPhoenix]

Wow I think I agree with everything you said there. The sandbox genre has so much room to expand, it is kind of exciting actually since it still is a relatively "new" genre. GTA3 was a ground breaking title, I cannot deny that all, it was, and like I sometimes critisize Nintendo at, I feel Rockstar is playing things too safe with GTA IV even axing some features that, while they may have been flawed in a previous game, could provide some new depth if worked out. I'll flat out say that Godfather and Saints Row are my favorite sandbox games, but I think it is more because of the team elements in them and in the Godfather's case, some awesome "take over" mechanics even if, sadly, they don't impact the central story (something I hope is changed in the future by either Rockstar or someone else) but at least it is progress.

As I said before GTA IV is a great game, BUT, I think Rockstar played it a bit too safe, and that is disappointing. Once again, as much as I hate to say this, it is like Nintendo has done with games like the Zelda series and the Mario Kart series. Perhaps the next iteration of GTA, which we KNOW will be here within 2 years will break some new ground or build on previous sandbox games. Could it be a female lead? I hope so but I really doubt it. But that is not a game breaker because you can't be a female in any of my favorite sandbox games either. Hopefully though they do take some advances to heart. I still think there is tons of potential in how they tell the story to better integrate it into the sandbox game wrapped around it. As I said before, it won't be easy, but it could really open up the genre in regards to story telling.

[Dirk Temporo]

That is funny coming from someone like yourself who does nothing but insult people constantly who don't agree with you, with...immature language.

I take offense to that. Just because I swear a lot while I'm arguing doesn't mean I don't have valid points. I'm sorry that you can only read, but not comprehend.

So you'd be ok with a child porn simulator?

They exist, and yes I'm fine with them. Child porn is illegal because it puts children in danger. "Simualators" are not real life, and there are no children in danger. I don't care what you do in your bedroom as long as it isn't hurting anyone else.

PS: If you find me "immature," that's personal.

[Spak-Spang]

That is funny coming from someone like yourself who does nothing but insult people constantly who don't agree with you, with...immature language.

I take offense to that. Just because I swear a lot while I'm arguing doesn't mean I don't have valid points. I'm sorry that you can only read, but not comprehend.

So you'd be ok with a child porn simulator?

They exist, and yes I'm fine with them. Child porn is illegal because it puts children in danger. "Simualators" are not real life, and there are no children in danger. I don't care what you do in your bedroom as long as it isn't hurting anyone else.

PS: If you find me "immature," that's personal.

Wow.  That is really dangerous, and very narrow sited.  Question who would be playing Child Porn Simulators?  That is right people that desire to perp on children.  A game is not going to relieve that desire, but actually make it stronger...because you aren't giving them an outlet, you are legitmizing their cravings...and desensitzing them.  What is worse, is this could actually led to people that may not have desires for Child Porn to actually develop such a desire.

Like it or not what you expose yourself to affects you.  Sex, violence, education, religion, porn, hate...basically everything you expose yourself to shapes your beliefs and actions.  And Playing a child porn game will affect you.  You may not go perp on a child, but your attitude towards such behavior may be altered.

This is a fact.  You know the military has done experiments, and found that First Person Shooters, and other realistic shooting games can help the human brain not freeze when firing at people in real life. 

This isn't a post talking about censoring games or that video games are evil...but just an acknowledgment games affect you, and you should be aware of that.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Edit: Had a response to Dirk but there is no point in continuing it.

[Bill Aurion]

I think that's a fairly generalized view of how the mind works...There are a bunch of psychological and social factors that play into it...

Like first of all, how in tune with reality is a person?  Are they diagnosed with a personality or psychotic disorder?  On the social side, were they taught what is and what is not socially or morally wrong?  Someone who is taught that shooting people is bad is obviously going to be affected differently than someone who has not, and going back to mental disorders, one with schizophrenia is obviously going to react differently (and theoretically more negatively) than someone who does not...

You can't just say "Oh games will definitely change you," because that's not the case at all...

(And if anything, the military example is more an example of "familiarity"...Someone who has never fired a gun is holding something alien to them; they don't know what it will do when it fires, the kickback, etc...After putting yourself in the shoes of someone holding a gun, you are more familiar with it, and thus more confident to pull the trigger in real life...Morality is an impossible thing to judge, and thus can't be tested clinically...)

[Nick DiMola]

Like first of all, how in tune with reality is a person?

I'd say if they are playing a child pr0n simulator, not very...

However, your points are valid.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Let's see how consistent people are about this morality in games, would any of you be ok with a game that starred a racist organization (like the KKK) and it nothing but promote bigotry and hatred for a race, with tasks related to lynching or doing something worse to another race.

[Nick DiMola]

Let's see how consistent people are about this morality in games, would any of you be ok with a game that starred a racist organization (like the KKK) and it nothing but promote bigotry and hatred for a race, with tasks related to lynching or doing something worse to another race.

I'm down with it all, bring it on. As long as we properly label it all, making it available to only the proper crowds. A KKK game would never see a publisher, so you would never have to worry about it hitting store shelves. Publishers can be restrictive in a lot of cases, but they do keep out absolute crap like a racist KKK game from being released. I'm sure you can find stuff like that somewhere in the tubes, but I'm sure it isn't generating interest from anybody but people who are already major racists.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Let's see how consistent people are about this morality in games, would any of you be ok with a game that starred a racist organization (like the KKK) and it nothing but promote bigotry and hatred for a race, with tasks related to lynching or doing something worse to another race.

I'm down with it all, bring it on. As long as we properly label it all, making it available to only the proper crowds. A KKK game would never see a publisher, so you would never have to worry about it hitting store shelves. Publishers can be restrictive in a lot of cases, but they do keep out absolute crap like a racist KKK game from being released. I'm sure you can find stuff like that somewhere in the tubes, but I'm sure it isn't generating interest from anybody but people who are already major racists.

I dunno, I think we thought up Rockstar's next project.

[Dirk Temporo]

A game is not going to relieve that desire, but actually make it stronger.

No. No no no.

No no no no no no no.

Where do you people GET this stuff? You realize that the OVERWHELMING majority of pedophiles NEVER touch a child EVER, right? And that the same overwhelming majority typically looks at some form of child porn quite frequently?

Looking at visuals does not increase likelihood of performing the act being shown in the visuals. Pedophiles have a fetish just like anyone else. Yes, some of them can't control it, but as I said, the overwhelming majority of them can. You're acting like pedophiles are automatically monsters and ticking time bombs. They're not.

Let's see how consistent people are about this morality in games, would any of you be ok with a game that starred a racist organization (like the KKK) and it nothing but promote bigotry and hatred for a race, with tasks related to lynching or doing something worse to another race.

What up?



And yes I'm fine with it.

[Luigi Dude]

Where do you people GET this stuff? You realize that the OVERWHELMING majority of pedophiles NEVER touch a child EVER, right? And that the same overwhelming majority typically looks at some form of child porn quite frequently?

Looking at visuals does not increase likelihood of performing the act being shown in the visuals. Pedophiles have a fetish just like anyone else. Yes, some of them can't control it, but as I said, the overwhelming majority of them can. You're acting like pedophiles are automatically monsters and ticking time bombs. They're not.

Why don't you take a seat over there

[Maverick]

**** this thread.

[GoldenPhoenix]

**** this thread.

Lol.

[oohhboy]

LOL. Where is that from?