Do you think it`s acceptable for certain people pushing for a ban on a game even before it`s out?. I`m of course talking about "Bully" the new Rockstar (GTA,Manhunt) game soon to be released. Here`s the article (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/08/10/bully_game_uproar/) that got me thinking. They say ""Such games give the impression that these types of experiences are normal. We are very concerned that they have an effect on young people. We are contacted by up to four children a day who are suicidal, and many many more who have suffered injuries and trauma." But the only thing we have seen so far is a few screenshots. This is going a bit too far too soon in my opinion.

Bully screenshots (http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/bully/screenindex.html)

What are your thoughts on this?

Much ado about a game that's likely to suck anyway?

Quite possibly, but it`s the principal about the whole thing.

Although Rockstar haven`t let me down in the past, quality of game wise.

I thought Bully looked pretty good, and rather tame. More like something that would get a T rating than an M. Why is it being banned again?

I thought Bully looked pretty good, and rather tame. More like something that would get a T rating than an M. Why is it being banned again?

Apparantly the concept of "bullying" is too close to the bone.

Oh no, our kids might want to play a game that we don't want them to play. Ban it so that we don't have to tell them they can't have it. O_O

And yeah, it looks like it's going to be awful anyways.

And yeah, it looks like it's going to be awful anyways.


Well, i was impressed with what they did with Manhunt, maybe this will turn out to be pretty good.....maybe.

I've never played a bad Rockstar game, and I like the idea for the game. I'm pretty sure I'll like it.

I've never played a bad Rockstar game, and I like the idea for the game. I'm pretty sure I'll like it.

What about State of Emergency?

What about State of Emergency?

But they only published it, they had nothing to do with the development.

What about State of Emergency?

Never played it. It looked like it might be fun for an hour.

I never liked rockstar anyway. GTA 3 was alright I suppose but then the next two were just exact copies of it, manhunt I played round my mates house and after about 20 minutes I realised its so repetitive it makes you want to drill a hole in your own head.

As for this bully game I dont really care whether its banned or not. It just seems by banning it in some places, it gives it more publicity and makes kids want to buy it even more.

I never liked rockstar anyway. GTA 3 was alright I suppose but then the next two were just exact copies of it, manhunt I played round my mates house and after about 20 minutes I realised its so repetitive it makes you want to drill a hole in your own head.

As for this bully game I dont really care whether its banned or not. It just seems by banning it in some places, it gives it more publicity and makes kids want to buy it even more.

I disagree, i thought Manhunt was extremely psychological. It had a tense frightening atmosphere which people totaly overlooked.

I never liked rockstar anyway. GTA 3 was alright I suppose but then the next two were just exact copies of it

lol wot ?_?

Looks shit. =/

and how long have you been here without learning to put threads in the correct section? my god, you deserve some sort of medal. a stupid medal.

lol wot ?_?

Yeah ok I kinda said the wrong thing, what I meant to say was they didnt improve on it at all, usually when you sell a second game you expect some things to have improved eg the graphics, gameplay or whatever but in that case nothing improved. So whats the point in paying 30 quid again?

The point is that there is new stuff to do in the game that you couldn't do in the preceding one. I think it's rather silly to presume a sequel isn't worth playing if it's the exact same gameplay and graphics with new content. If it worked once, it will probably work again.

I have no interest in this sort of game but my view on banning it is the same as my view on banning any game... it's utterly pointless. If kids shouldn't be playing it, then their parents and the establishments that sell the games ought to prevent them from doing so.

The point is that there is new stuff to do in the game that you couldn't do in the preceding one. I think it's rather silly to presume a sequel isn't worth playing if it's the exact same gameplay and graphics with new content. If it worked once, it will probably work again.

What new content, two new forms of transport? Ok that gives an extra half an hour of entertainment, other than that they havent really added that much if you look at the overall game experience.

Anyway I only said that GTA3 was alright, I dont think any of the GTA series are great, the shooting in them is abismal. The driving, while fun at first, quickly becomes repetetive as you discover all the missions require you to do the exact same thing. The graphics havent improved at all, the games dont last very long and once completed there isnt a multiplayer option. =\

San Andreas was an exceptional improvement on the whole series.

Until it got fagged up by Lukewarm Coffee.

The point is that there is new stuff to do in the game that you couldn't do in the preceding one. I think it's rather silly to presume a sequel isn't worth playing if it's the exact same gameplay and graphics with new content. If it worked once, it will probably work again.

I have no interest in this sort of game but my view on banning it is the same as my view on banning any game... it's utterly pointless. If kids shouldn't be playing it, then their parents and the establishments that sell the games ought to prevent them from doing so.

What he said!

Liz, I don't play GTA so I don't really know, but I have a hard time believing that's all they added. I'm assuming there were new missions to go on etc.

They will probably end up banning "The Warriors" when that comes out to. Apparently it is going to be Rockstar's GTA Killer. And real violent.

They will probably end up banning "The Warriors" when that comes out to. Apparently it is going to be Rockstar's GTA Killer. And real violent.

...Wait... They're making a game... to kill their best selling one? Wtf are you smoking?

Liz: I don't see how you can say that they haven't upgraded the gameplay at all since GTA 3.

Upgrades as follows (these are the ones that I'm thinking of off the top of my head).

Vice City: Better targeting system, Motorcycles, Helicopters, Lots more guns, Awesome soundtrack, Higher Framerates, Higher level of details, City doubled in size, Interior environments, More complex mission system featuring a greater variety of objectives, DOUBLE the amount of different cars (a 60+ upgrade), New physics engine for boats, Main character TALKS.

San Andreas: Personal Stats that change depending on how you treat your character including sex appeal, respect, weight. A dating system, a HUGE map, lots more vehicles, lots more weapons, the ability to swim, hold two guns, bycicles, and above all: upgradable skills.

Liz: You're dumb.

Better targeting system? You mean you have to actually move the analogue stick over the character! As I said two new forms of transport, woah dont change things too much rockstar. City doubled in size, but the content stayed the same e.g go to one bloke who tells you to kill some gangsters then tells you to drive him somewhere, while at that place you meet another guy who does exactly the same thing. rinse and repeat. Interior environments, a tool shop and a resteraunt both with absoloutley no interactivity whatsoever.

More complex mission system? I'm sorry but you seem to have lost me on this one, If you play both games and you do the missions you wont see any difference. Ok they also added a few new skins for cars wow thats a massive improvement on the last game isnt it, because the first one didnt have any cars did it! The main character talking was a slight improvement that doesnt actually involve anything else rather than the movies you see at missions.

Let me just say I hated San Andreas, it felt like they were trying to do too much in one game, its supposed to be a driving game not a gambling, dancing or dating sim.
While the whole stats thing was nice and added something extra to the game it wasnt exactly complex and the skills were improved just by repeating the exercise, keep shooting people with a pistol and your pistol skill will reach max in half an hour etc.

In all the things you've listed there's nothing that stood out, like a graphics overhaul or something its all little things, when half life 2 came out if all they had done was add two new weapons and 3 new creatures to kill in a new location I would have been mighty pissed off, but then they actually improved on it. I suppose its because this is a console designed game. Cant expect much from it.

Milkman: Fuck you.

Haha, that was fucking awesome, Liz. Good job. :laugh:

They will probably end up banning "The Warriors" when that comes out to. Apparently it is going to be Rockstar's GTA Killer. And real violent.

I checked that game out on Gamespot. Look pretty nice imo, and i got thinking. Maybe "Bully" is just a sacraficial lamb to draw attention away from "the warriors".

THRILL KILL!
And dirge that game looks like bad news! It has children in school!

gta sucks. after 1 and 2. not even a 3d makeover can change it. i played 1 till i got tired of it. and 2 didn't last half as long. why would i want another one? ooh revamp! omg! its 3d! omg. i creamed my pants!!! stupid kids.

(it'll attract the kiddies that are still wondering why it started with 3 instead of 1) but other than that. bleh.

little kid: "gta3 rulz! i'm a master in gta3. but why do they call it gta 3? why not just gta?" ::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


liz rulz for using half life as an example. DOUBLE OWNED!!! (plus hl = greatest fps evar!)


and even though i think gta3,4 and 5 suck. bully, on the other hand, seems like a hell of a lot of fun. i personally can't wait to pick on little kids, steal lunch money, and a bunch of other funny ass shit. definately diffrent from gta where, (as stated many times before) is the same shit since the old pc version!!!

so i'm looking foward to this game.

can't wait to sneak into girls bathroom and shove someone's face in the drinking fountain. this game, is gonna rule. (hopefully.)

but i can already imagine it being done all wrong. like if they have missions. fuck missions. i hate missions. a true "sand-box" game don't need no fucking missions. you just fuck around for the fuck of it! a bullies life is no exception of pointless fucking around with!

so one downside i see is, you can't go into girls bathroom, steal money, or shove a kids face in the drinking fountain, unless you started the mission first where it has you do that fun stuff. total downer. i wanna be a rebel without a cause dammit!

They say ""Such games give the impression that these types of experiences are normal. We are very concerned that they have an effect on young people. We are contacted by up to four children a day who are suicidal, and many many more who have suffered injuries and trauma."

Yes, because violent video games will make me violent! And Tiger Woods PGA Tour '01 will make me a pro golfer!

It is concievable that a person playing Tiger Woods PGA Tour '01 would become more interested in golf after playing the game and then start playing golf in real life. It's not likely they'd become a pro, but nobody is suggesting that playing GTA will turn you into Dillinger, either.

The point is that just because some people may be influenced in a negative way by GTA does not mean that other people's right to play it should be taken away (in an ideal world I think nobody would want to play it anyway but that's beside the point). The superior solution would be to prevent them from having the game in the first place and then try to help them, since anyone who WOULD be influenced in such a way by games obviously needs help in the first place.

True. You're right there.

Never played it. It looked like it might be fun for an hour.

It was fun for about a half and hour, and this is america i dont think anything should be banned. Its up to the goddamn lazy parent to teach there kids right and wrong. I doubt Hitler turned out to be such an ass because he saw the sex clip in San Andreas or bashed a dudes face in like in Manhunt,,,,which by the way was a pretty good game.

(in an ideal world I think nobody would want to play it anyway but that's beside the point).

How come. 'Cos pixel deaths? omgzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

I don't see people in uproar with games based on WW2, when they ignore the fact that Klaus the dead Nazi guard had a fine maiden and little nipper back in Berlin. Who will feed Rita and Ernst now, hm?

Like, thats the overall concern here. The deaths of innocent civilians in a game. What about Klaus, huh?

THINK OF KLAUS.

How come. 'Cos pixel deaths? omgzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

I don't see people in uproar with games based on WW2, when they ignore the fact that Klaus the dead Nazi guard had a fine maiden and little nipper back in Berlin. Who will feed Rita and Ernst now, hm?

Like, thats the overall concern here. The deaths of innocent civilians in a game. What about Klaus, huh?

THINK OF KLAUS.

omg, you're right ;_;

I'll never play Battlefield 1942 again.

Guess it's back to killing them Arabs in Battlefield 2!

How come. 'Cos pixel deaths? omgzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.


'Cos it promotes the idea that murder and generally fucking people over is fun, yes. I'm not saying it's the cause of bad behavior in people, but rather a manifestation of it. If it didn't represent a desire on some level of people's minds to actually commit those acts, they wouldn't have placed them in the game in the first place.

God forbid somebody realise the difference between reality and a game.
If i play a game with any form of violence, my first thought isn't to go out and perform such violence.
Thats not to say some people wouldn't think otherwise. Medical Conditions/Idiocy etc.

'Cos it promotes the idea that murder and generally fucking people over is fun, yes. I'm not saying it's the cause of bad behavior in people, but rather a manifestation of it. If it didn't represent a desire on some level of people's minds to actually commit those acts, they wouldn't have placed them in the game in the first place.

Personally, I found the car element of Grand Theft Auto to be the most appealing. The 3D GTAs (III, Vice City and San Andreas) lost something that was present in GTA 1 and 2. In the first two games, you got money for everything you destroyed - including running over pixellated pedestrians, yes. I was pretty disappointed that in GTA3 you had to kill someone then run over a wad of money to get cash.

That's not to say I don't like the 3D GTA games - but like I said before, it's for the car element. The series went from cartoon gore (GTA1 and 2) to crime sim (3, VC and SA). However, with that transition came a good storyline - sure, you needed to do some dodgy stuff, but it's pretend. I can't think of one mission that actually requires you to kill an innocent person (although I could be wrong). And some of the car chases are fanstastic - it great to hop in a fast car, and find all the ramps in the city to jump off.

Just because a game has the ability to have someone acting like a total wanker doesn't mean that's all it can be used for. I highly doubt the Rockstar designers thought "Hey, let's fuck up the gaming youth of the world" when they made the game. In a perfect world, people would still play GTA, because car chases and blowing stuff up is fun.

...on that note, Burnout 3 does both of those things better, so meh.

God forbid somebody realise the difference between reality and a game.
If i play a game with any form of violence, my first thought isn't to go out and perform such violence.
Thats not to say some people wouldn't think otherwise. Medical Conditions/Idiocy etc.

exactly, reality and fantasy are different entities and should remain that way. And my first thought upon playing a game isn't going out to kill

Well, I play violent video games! Beware! I could snap at any moment!

'Cos it promotes the idea that murder and generally fucking people over is fun, yes.

The same idea can be applied to WW2 games though, which take place in REAL LOCATIONS and are based on REAL EVENTS. I wonder what a war-vet grandpa would think if he walked in and saw you playing a game that allowed you to storm the beaches of Normandy, watch your comrades fall around you, and unleash hell on Germans (most of which were probably around 14/15 at this time, cos desperate Hitler using Hitler Youth)? He'd be pretty offended imo.

But what if he walked in and saw you playing GTA, in the fictional state of San Andreas. (Hay guyz, anybody live in San Andreas here?). You'd most probably be driving around (as Raidenex said, doing wacky shit with the vehicles is more fun than holding down a button and watching people fall over dead) and he wouldn't care less. Come out with some comment like "all these new fangled contraptions."

Dislike GTA because you think its shit to play. Don't dislike it because all you see is mindless carnage.

Apparently, people are so used to one defensive line of thinking that they will assume battle stance at the slightest provocation. =/

Try again, guys. I said that GTA is a manifestation of bad behavior, not a cause.

As for the WW2 game thing, if a vet is offended by WW2 games they are stupid. I can't really see how that's relevant though. It's highly different from the killing in GTA; those games are based on people who have a mission because they're fighting for a cause, it's not gratuitous at all. I would still theorize that in an ideal world, people wouldn't want to play them, though.

And I've never played GTA, I don't even know if I dislike it.

Apparently, people are so used to one defensive line of thinking that they will assume battle stance at the slightest provocation. =/

Try again, guys. I said that GTA is a manifestation of bad behavior, not a cause.

As for the WW2 game thing, if a vet is offended by WW2 games they are stupid. I can't really see how that's relevant though. It's highly different from the killing in GTA; those games are based on people who have a mission because they're fighting for a cause, it's not gratuitous at all. I would still theorize that in an ideal world, people wouldn't want to play them, though.

And I've never played GTA, I don't even know if I dislike it.

wtf, a cause? you mean money, because they certainly aren't doing it for being religous or shit. Also if it's actually proved that this game is the result of someones death irl then it is a cause of bad things. I dont really care all that much because this game is fucking shit anyway.

this hole thing is retarded, liz you're being a dumbass just cause you hate teh game so much it's over-loaded the logic part of your brain... jerkface

Yes I guess this "hole" thing is retarded, I mean who on here likes games anyway? What a crazy notion!

Fuck off you fucking dimwitted moron.

wtf, a cause? you mean money, because they certainly aren't doing it for being religous or shit. Also if it's actually proved that this game is the result of someones death irl then it is a cause of bad things. I dont really care all that much because this game is fucking shit anyway.

I honestly have no idea how anything in this post relates to anything I said. I never said it was the result of someone's death in real life ?_?

What exactly are you trying to say to me here?

Yes I guess this "hole" thing is retarded, I mean who on here likes games anyway? What a crazy notion!

Fuck off you fucking dimwitted moron.


oh my god a spelling mistake, alas cruel fate why have you allowed me to fall victim to such an ungodly error... wait, fuck you, you stupid, sweaty, scabby cunt.

wtf, a cause? you mean money, because they certainly aren't doing it for being religous or shit. Also if it's actually proved that this game is the result of someones death irl then it is a cause of bad things. I dont really care all that much because this game is fucking shit anyway.

Did you even read what TK said? ; ;

If you did, try reading it again.

Oh shit, let's ban Pokemon games! It promotes capturing wild animals and pitting them against each other in combat!

It'll mean the return of those hideous dog/rooster fights from the 1800's!

I honestly have no idea how anything in this post relates to anything I said. I never said it was the result of someone's death in real life ?_?

What exactly are you trying to say to me here?

Yes I misread your post.

Also, mr. patterson, what the fuck? Your first post looks like it was written by an 8 year old, so kindly fuck off you fucking irish potato.

Oh shit, let's ban Pokemon games! It promotes capturing wild animals and pitting them against each other in combat!

It'll mean the return of those hideous dog/rooster fights from the 1800's!

Which is exactly what I'm getting at. If you get peeved at violence in a game, then its easy to apply this to almost every other game. And why not more so at WW2, or any real-scenario based shooters etc, seeing as real blokes actually got slaughtered?

I just think its petty that GTA is seen as awful because you can run over and shoot random, fictional, civs. Thats not all it is. I, personally, love the general freedom that comes with GTA games, and more recently, that Mercenaries game. Which, seeing as we're on the topic, allows you to do most of the things in GTA, as well as giving you the option to level an entire city with air strikes. But it didn't have blood in it. So it makes it okay ?_?

And TK, I still get the impression from your earlier post that the whole problem you have with GTA is that it promotes fucking people over. That reason being the sole reason you probably wouldn't play it. But thats in a whole load of games. Almost every game these days has some sort of manifestion of bad behaviour.

Anyway, I wasn't forming a battle stance or whatever (using caps is quicker than putting something in bold, because I'm figuring thats what you meant by "battle stance" ?_?), it just seems to me that a great deal of popular games involve some form of slaughter and fucking over, so why should GTA be frowned upon because of that ?_?

I mean, if you generally dont play games which are pretty high in "unfavourable content" or whatever they call it, then fair enough. I just got the impression you happened to be singling GTA out of everything else.

Tbh, if parents stopped buying 18 rated games for their kids, then this whole topic would never exist =/

The battle stance thing wasn't really aimed at you. Okay, let me try to make what I meant more clear.

It probably would have been more apt to say that in an ideal world, people wouldn't have made GTA in the first place... or they wouldn't have made it the way it is made now. Maybe this would work better if I use a game I've played and am familiar with, so I'll use Fallout. It's a pretty realistic game for an RPG, very open ended. You can play almost any type of character and act any way you choose. That means if you want, you can accomplish your goals by murdering people ruthlessly. In many cases the game gives you the opportunity to do so for stuff that you don't even have to accomplish, it's just to make extra money. You can even become part of the mafia and assassinate people just to get rich.

I don't think that this being in the game is going to ruin people. I think that the fact that the people who created the game (and the people who like having it in there) put those extra things in it in the first place is a manifestation of the fact that lots of people are unhealthily fascinated by violence and brutality. If they weren't, they wouldn't have put it in the game in the first place because there would be no interest in it, kind of like how most games don't give you the option of performing a side quest to, say, go to the local store and buy some Cheetos, because people don't really have much interest in that. Theoretically, they could make the same side quest as an assassination be a quest to get the Cheetos, or anything else, but it's the assassination that interests people.

Basically, I'm not saying those games should be pulled from the shelves or even that they themselves are inherently bad. Hell, I love Fallout, it's one of my favorite games ever. I'm a firm believer that people should be able to express themselves in entertainment however they choose and other people should be able to view that entertainment if they choose. I'm just saying, people like violence, and that's a bad thing, and if they didn't, we wouldn't be seeing it in our entertainment.

EDIT: I'd also like to specify that I don't consider most WW2 type games to be the same at all because they usually aren't games that put a focus on carrying out brutal acts. Sure, there is violence in them, but that is because the focus of the game is on completing the missions, which theoretically are fun because they place you in a fictional setting and you have to use skill and instinct to complete an objective, not because you are given the opportunity to shoot people. Obviously, some people will get a thrill out of virtually shooting people in a WW2 game, but that's not the whole point of the shooting people being in the game, so it's not a manifestation of the same flaw in humanity. I hope this makes sense.

Basically, I'm not saying those games should be pulled from the shelves or even that they themselves are inherently bad. Hell, I love Fallout, it's one of my favorite games ever. I'm a firm believer that people should be able to express themselves in entertainment however they choose and other people should be able to view that entertainment if they choose. I'm just saying, people like violence, and that's a bad thing, and if they didn't, we wouldn't be seeing it in our entertainment.

As much as we dislike it, violence is an inherent part of our nature. Personally, I believe that violent movies and video games are far better than bloodsports.

Compared to earlier generations, we're relatively pacifist...hell, there's an uproar when 20 people die in Iraq.


EDIT: I'd also like to specify that I don't consider most WW2 type games to be the same at all because they usually aren't games that put a focus on carrying out brutal acts. Sure, there is violence in them, but that is because the focus of the game is on completing the missions, which theoretically are fun because they place you in a fictional setting and you have to use skill and instinct to complete an objective, not because you are given the opportunity to shoot people. Obviously, some people will get a thrill out of virtually shooting people in a WW2 game, but that's not the whole point of the shooting people being in the game, so it's not a manifestation of the same flaw in humanity. I hope this makes sense.

The same can be said for GTA. If all you had to do in GTA was run around and kill people, it would bet boring pretty damn quickly (hello State of Emergency). However, GTA does have missions, and the focus usually isn't on the brutal acts - no more than a WW2 shooter, anyway.

I'm aware you aren't judging GTA, by the way, but you're making accusations about it that are completely false. I conceed your point that in a perfect, non-violent world, these sort of video games wouldn't be made - but isn't that a moot point, considering that aggression is part of human nature, as is the desire to compete and win?

Tbh, if parents stopped buying 18 rated games for their kids, then this whole topic would never exist =/
Or parents just start doing a better job of, you know, parenting their kids.

As much as we dislike it, violence is an inherent part of our nature. Personally, I believe that violent movies and video games are far better than bloodsports.

Compared to earlier generations, we're relatively pacifist...hell, there's an uproar when 20 people die in Iraq.

I also think they are better than bloodsports. And I agree that we are better compared to earlier generations. Yup. No argument there.


The same can be said for GTA. If all you had to do in GTA was run around and kill people, it would bet boring pretty damn quickly (hello State of Emergency). However, GTA does have missions, and the focus usually isn't on the brutal acts - no more than a WW2 shooter, anyway.

Right, but in a WW2 shooter, I don't think they put in stuff that is solely there just for the "guilty pleasure" of it. It's not at all the same as putting a side quest, or just extra stuff in a game that is just plain outright brutality for the sake of brutality. The motivation for putting it there in the first place is different.


I'm aware you aren't judging GTA, by the way, but you're making accusations about it that are completely false.

Which ones, exactly? X_X


I conceed your point that in a perfect, non-violent world, these sort of video games wouldn't be made - but isn't that a moot point, considering that aggression is part of human nature, as is the desire to compete and win?

Well, personally, I think it's a fallacy to disregard something because of "human nature", since the whole reason why we are pretty freakin' awesome is that we can do stuff that is not in our nature, suppress our nature, and even change our nature. Animals don't seem to be able to do that.

But in this particular thread, it kind of is a moot point, yes. I didn't make a big deal of it, someone else did. In fact when I mentioned it, it was a side note in a totally different post, placed within parentheses. I think I might have even said something like "But that's not really relevant here" or something.

Or parents just start doing a better job of, you know, parenting their kids.

I get your point now, TK, but I still believe that GTA is grossly misjudged by alot of people, who see nothing more in it than random acts of violence.

Also, the reason I harped on about the WW2 thing is due to the fact I thought you were making a "so much violence in GTA, what terrible game ;______;" sort of point. I figure that if you're going to complain about violence in one game, why not complain about it in all of them? Just to clear up why I brought that in, btw.

Yeah, I get it. I figured I just wasn't doing a good job of explaining myself.

I agree that GTA gets a lot of nonsense flak but of course that's how the media is. There's always got to be a villain, even if in some cases the villain is a video game company. =/

This thread had the sweetest little ending.

<3

ooh yah. can't wait to smash nerds face in drinking fountain...sweeet