Ah, so my suspicions were correct. The quote was taken out of context.

------------------
All you need is love.

^ummm??? lol...anyways
Haitian leaders? I didnt know Haiti had leaders...
And I also think its funny (sad) how everything questionable is compared to Michael Jackson

------------------
nil nip nada zip zero naught lip zil

I find it interesting how he fails to mention

1. How these two kids, age 14 and 16, were able to get a hold of two loaded sniper rifles.
2. The age cutoff is just as ineffectual with movies, and not nearly as many people complain about violence in them.
   [/list=a]
   
   ------------------
   "No good can ever come from staying with normal people"
   -Outlaw Star
   "Some people play tennis. I erode the human soul"
   -Tycho, Penny Arcade

Surely if people feel the urge to kill (which, by the rising homocide rate in America, is increasingly the case) it would be better if they could relieve that urge through a computer game? By banning all violent games you're just supressing that urge, which might work in the short-term, but eventually... bad things will happen.

It's the non-linearity of games like GTA that make them so fantastic, because you COULD kill prostitutes and gun down people on the street...or you COULD be an ambulance driver or a cabbie. Personally, I like getting bombs on the car and driving up next to a bus or a truck and detonating while we're both going at high speeds. Kills myself, but it still looks pretty cool. But I do like to do the taxi missions because you get to know the area better. But as for non-linearity, GTA2 is much better.

And the 'realism' comment is hilarious. Grand Theft Auto does not look realistic in the slightest, unless the image of a stick-man looking like a person is considered 'realistic'. If I shoot someone in the face, their head isn't going to dissapear and blood sprouting of their neck like a fountain. (well, I don't actually know, but I don't think it would!). And the car physics isn't realistic at all, unless they make bouncy-cars.
And that's the whole point. Because bouncy cars are fun! And games are fun. Realism isn't fun.


The guy does have a point though. The US is different, and there is something causing increased levels of violence compared to other countries.. But that thing isn't computer games. Lots of other countries play exactly the same computer games, and have far lower homocide rates. (And also Canada has similar gun laws as the US, but also has a way lower homocide rate)
So, what IS that thing?...

[Edit: Also I think it's ridiculous to assume that Michael Jackson assaulted a child in any way. It's all just part of the paedophile-witch hunt]

[This message has been edited by Mort-Hog (edited January 03, 2004).]

I think it's because Americans are annoying and some just need to die.

------------------
Roach - Steal acceptance, lend denial.

0 of 14.

Woo! I got in the first post before Roach is hung drawn and quartered

yay! Mob lyching time

------------------
WARNING: THIS POST MAY CONTAIN TRACES OF PEANUT!!!

oh crap...

It's kinda funny. If he had said that about the Iraqis, or even about Canadians the comment would have gone pretty much unnoticed.

Not by me. I'd probably form a more comprehensive response yelling at him if he had. I just know that there's plenty of other people that are sure to do it with someone making terribly vague and derogatory generalisations regarding Americans. :-)

Well, there certainly must be some kind of moral degeneration taking place when a game like GTA: VC is wildly popular. Also, the article doesn't state that GTA is worse than child molestation. It states that what Take Two Interactive does (glamorize degenerate behavior) is worse than what anyone thinks Michael Jackson or Martha Stewart have done. Seems clearly stated to me he is comparing specific people and their actions to Take Two Interactive and not child molestation generally.

The childish reactions of some of you are immensely entertaining. It's always humorous to see such a lack of tolerance for differing opinions. Especially in this case when it deals with, what I feel to be, a terrible game.

Now, I would like to add that, although I understand his logic, there is very little in this world worse than child molestation.

------------------
former TACC outcast

It's a matter of responsibility. If you were raised correctly by responsible parents like many of us here were, we know (judging by the responses) that it's only a game, and there's nothing truely glamorous about it in real life. It should end there, it does for me, if it doesn't for some other kids, they probably didn't have very good parents that tought them proper morals and principles.

------------------
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.

i want to see it crimson[the email you emailed him]

------------------
janitor bobs idea of rogers video: He's actually the overweight guy next door who has a HUGE selection of videos, including the entire Lethal Weapon, Halloween, and 'Ernest' series.
The advantage is is that you can 'borrow' movies for long amounts of time without him remembering that you borrowed them.

The disadvantage is the pizza cheese grime on the DVDs

Parental responsibility isn't a component in this debate as the question wasn't whether or not it should be sold to kids.

The particular statement being discussed basically says that TTI actions are worse than Jacksons and Stewarts. Their actions being to release a game that glamorizes extremely psychopathic criminal behavior to their audience. Now I'm not debating what the effects of that action are or are not. I'm simply pointing out that many people in this thread seem unable to comprehend what was written in that article and that the purpose of the article isn't even to morally preach but to advise against investing in the company due to the nature of their most profitable material (one that attracts much political and social pressure) and the possibly criminal actions that the company is being investigated for.

------------------
former TACC outcast

I can see your point, but it's pretty clear there was more to the article than just that. There's obviously some preaching in there, whether it be on purpose or not.

And comon, the guy is obviously pretty clueless, he didn't even know who the developer was.

------------------
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.

Why do you say that? He never states who the developer is. He simply states that Take Two Interactive's most profitable games are GTA and, again, the purpose of the article is two inform readers of the authors opinion of why TTI is a risky stock. "Rockstar Games" and "developer" are not germane in that context.

------------------
former TACC outcast

I just read your article about GTA: Vice City. First of all, the publisher is Take Two Interactive, Rockstar made the game. I own quite a few of Rockstar's games and I have not, as of yet, gone on a killing rampage with guns, cars, or blunt objects. Though I may be getting a shotgun tomorrow morning (time to run? I doubt it). It's sad to see a form of entertainment with as much potential as video games be blasted publicly by ignorant people who don't seem to be based in reality. Using your figures, 5 million people have bought Vice City alone. I have not heard of 5 million people going nuts and shooting everyone they see. Just because two mentally unstable teenagers think it's a good idea to shoot at cars, you blame a video game they play? Let me ask you this. What video game did Jack the Ripper play? Or the Zodiac killer? How about Hitler or Napoleon? I doubt they played any, yet they all were mentally unstable and killed people in some of the most horrific ways imaginable.

I'd like to know where people like you get these ideas that video games cause violence. Your grandparents must be the people that thought the television would be the end of all humanity. It's a sad day when technology has to defend itself because people can't control themselves. It's easy to put the blame on something other than a human fault, but the fact is people are screwed up. Video games did not create this condition, and video games do not make this condition worse. Before you write another article bashing a video game, movie, or TV show think about what you're writing. To people that can think logically for themselves, you're writing away your chance at a good reputation.

Chris

------------------
Truth is in the eye of the beholder.
Forum Rules

How embarrasing. If he even reads that your rant will most likely be ignored since the article he wrote appears to be different from the one you read.

I'm not trying to pick any sides on this issue. I'm just reacting the way I am because there is an obvious trend here for people to link to articles and then go off on nonsensical tirads about something they obviously miscomprehended. Similar to what occurred in the recently closed religion thread. Seems symptomatic of intolerance to me.

------------------
former TACC outcast

Hey, welcome back. How's the army?

------------------
The Matrix: Unplugged

eh?

i ranted about one thing i read, not the entire article.

------------------
Truth is in the eye of the beholder.
Forum Rules

I simply have to ask if any of you are going to lose sleep over what the man has said? He clearly is too closed minded to be worth any of our time, and he's also talking to a group of stock traders, not a group of video-game enthusiests. I have yet to see an article written by anyone respectibly knowledged in the area of video games. When I do, I'll bother with ranting and raving at them. Until then, I think we should leave the old people to argue about how to reply to an e-mail, while we debate about things we actually disagree upon.

JediKirby

------------------
"I was driving along listening to the radio, when Judas Priest comes on. It was 'You've got another thing coming.' All of a sudden, I enter 'VICE CITY RAMAGE MODE' and nearly ran some guy over"
- ]-[ellequin

I found this article a while ago. It's one of the two pro-video game articles I've seen in my life.. (published by a newspaper)

------------------
MadQuack on Military school: Pro's: I get to shoot a gun. Con's: Everything else.
"I'm going to beat you until the laws of physics are violated!!" ! Maeve's Warcry

RIP -MaDaVentor-. You will be missed.

Everythings cool! If everything goes well I should be back home around the 21st of February. Hopefully a little sooner, if I'm lucky.

Crimson, of course you are more than entitled to your opinion but my position is that you are reacting to something other than what he wrote. Of course the author's opinion is that the game is trash but, as jedikerby and I have pointed out, the intention of the aritcle is to state the authors opinions of investing in the stock. I can't see where many of his views of the game are even arguable. Granted, I'm not a GTA fan but I have played Vice City for a little and watched it played. I didn't personally witness any of the prostitute stuff although I have heard of it before. And it is true that you play as a criminal and basically have to act out criminal acts in order to complete mission objectives and while other games may offer superior graphics it is not wrong to call the graphics realistic. There is definately no doubt as to what transpires on the game screen. Now, I don't remember the author taking the position that kids were being influenced to actually commit real life acts of violence as a result of playing the game so I can only assume that the "flaming" comments made here toward him are either due to a lack of reading and comprehension ability on some peoples parts and/or a lack of tolerance for people of differing opinions and/or beliefs.

------------------
former TACC outcast

[This message has been edited by Wookie06 (edited January 04, 2004).]

Granted, the piece was geared toward people who own. buy and sell stock, but his argumnet against people buying Take Two Interactive stock is that the company is promoting violence by marketing a violent video game. He also seems convinced that these violent video games are the cause for some of societies violence problems. Crimson is merely pointed out a possible flaw in the basis of the writer's entire argument.
There is also room to argue the point about the rating systems, minors getting their hands on violent games, and a lack of parental invovlement and responsibility. Kids will get their hands on these games, but it's in the parents hands to realize what their kids are doing and do something about it. Heaven forbid a parent find a violent videogame and take it away from their kid.
The arguments are perfectly valid as they gouge a huge hole is the writer's original argument.

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

It seems to me that when I read the article there was no moral argument being made. It seems that the point was being made that their most profitable enterprise was what he accurately described and I think it reasonable to infer that among his arguments is the opinion that investing in a stock whose most profitable venture is a controversial game is risky. *re-reads article* And upon re-reading the article I can confirm, once again, that I am correct. You, Avenger, are partially correct in that one of the reasons he suggests not investing in the stock is the promotion of violence but you have to carry it one step further. The point is the negative attention that their promotion of violence atracts.

If you re-read the article objectively, while you may still disagree with the conclusions of why the stock may or may not be a good investment, there is little else to disagree with except for the Jackson/Stewart comment.

------------------
former TACC outcast

I think people here are saying they disagree with the sources/facts he uses to support his piece more than anything else. Still, this always happens with anykind of anti-videogame anything that get's posted here.

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

Wookie, I realize the point of his article but I'm not an investor and couldn't care less about it. Like Avenger said, I disagree with the "facts" he used to support his article. The largest part of his article is about how violent the game is and how that causes problems with people. He did in fact use an example of two kids shooting at cars because they supposedly saw it in Vice City. We all know this is absolutely absurd, whether you are a fan of the game or not. I have GTA 3 and Vice City and I love the games, they are a lot of fun. I know, however that they are very violent. That doesn't cause people to go on killing sprees, which is what he suggested. He also compared Vice City to child molestation, cock fighting, and dwarf throwing. It's a GAME. If anything, compare it to games based on child molestation, cock fighting, and dwarf throwing.

------------------
Truth is in the eye of the beholder.
Forum Rules

I actually haven't noticed anyone disagree with a fact or source that he used. To me it appears that his facts and sources have gone undisputed. What I have noticed are people calling him an idiot, stupid, or wishing him beatings/anal rapes along with others quoting him and then demonstrating their lack of ability to comprehend what was written by posting their thoughts on what he said. I could give examples but that might be construed as making personal attacks so unless specifically asked to point them out, I won't but I will add that they are glaringly obvious. I'm assuming that the main reason for this is that most of the people reacting the way they are are simply a little too young to understand the issues addressed in the article.

With all that being said, it obviously opens up the debate of video games and violence. I personally never felt influenced to commit real life acts by any video games I played and I have always believed in parental responsibility but it is a valid issue to be addressed that there are an increasing number of media outlets that work contrary to good parents instilling good morals into their children. It makes the job of the parent even that much more important and difficult. I have come to the realization that it is impossible, in this day, to shield a child from the barrage of garbage assaulting them on a daily basis. The best we can currently do is raise our children the way we see fit, trust them to know moral from immoral, and help them when they need it.

------------------
former TACC outcast

The facts he uses cannot be disputed if they are facts. A fact, by definition is indisputable. I disagree with the way he connects those facts to video games. Facts are facts, his opinions on video games are not absolute truth, just like mine aren't. That means his opinions are subject to flaws, which in this case are glaringly obvious.

------------------
Truth is in the eye of the beholder.
Forum Rules

Actually, he raised the issue about the shooting because it affects the stock. He reported as a fact that the game is being linked to that shooting. He didn't state a personal opinion that that is so. Again, he stated that the game is under attack already for that. That affects the company's stock. Also, he never compared the game to child molestation and I must be missing the other references since I re-read it very quickly. He compared TTI actions to Jackson's and Stewart's which I read as actions which influence the stock beind as that is what the article is about. TTI actions, in his opinion, are far worse than what Jackson's and Stewart's (business related figures) actions in regards to the businesses their involved in. Stewart may have illegally traded and lied and Jackson may have molested children. TTI's actions, again in his opinion, are worse because they profit on the graphic depiction of violent, depraved acts and then he goes on to list other possible unethical business practices they are being investigated for.


------------------
former TACC outcast

Like I said before, my email was not in response to his entire article. Obviously, if the stock is suffering (fact), it is suffering. I never said that was a personal opinion. I failed to quote the parts I was talking about in my email though, so I'll try to find the ones that my email is in response to.

"People, this is insane. This is 10,000 times worse than the worst thing anybody thinks Michael Jackson ever did to a little boy - or than any lie the feds think Martha Stewart ever told them, or any line in any song that Bruce Springsteen ever sang that rankled a cop in the Meadowlands."

This is part of his opinion. He thinks the GAME is worse than Jackson molesting a kid. That's a pretty screwed up opinion. I'd rather have my kid play Vice City every day than have Mr. Jackson spend the night once.

"This whole age-cutoff thing is simply garbage - just like "Grand Theft Auto" itself - and sooner or later, I would imagine, we'll come to our senses and ban these games from public commerce, just like we ban child pornography and entertainment spectacles such as cock fighting and dwarf throwing."

Once again, he compares the GAME to child porn and human degradation. This is his opinion, and I disagree with it. That's also where those references came from (in case you weren't reading )

And to show that I'm not saying he's an idiot and should be shot or something...

"WHAT would be left of an outfit like Take- Two Interactive if its bizarre version of digital snuff porn were outlawed?

Frankly, not much. The company's latest three-month and nine-month financial results, covering the period through July 31, show "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City" and an earlier version of the same ghastly program ("Grand Theft Auto III") to have accounted for just under half the company's sales."

That may be fact. I don't know and don't care about how the company would fare if it's games were outlawed. It's not my job to care, it's his. That is not what i responded to in my email though.

Next time, I'll remember to quote things like that. It was late after all.

------------------
Truth is in the eye of the beholder.
Forum Rules

Okay, I remember those references now. It wasn't a part I paid attention to when I skimmed back through it. He envisions a day when a game that glamorizes acts such as having sex with prostitutes and killing them as well as other things is banned as other entertainment spectacles have been. I don't think we're on the same level as child porn but he hasn't said it's worse than child porn and I already explained my take on the Jackson/Stewart comments.

Anyways, dead horse. Personally I don't like his analogies to child exploitation. I feel they are inappropriate and stupid. My only goal here was to try to broaden the perspectives of those who were flaming the man for his opinions.

------------------
former TACC outcast

A noble cause, my friend, a noble cause indeed.



------------------
Truth is in the eye of the beholder.
Forum Rules

Although video games might not directly cause violence, they could cause higher levels of aggression perhaps... Everyone here seems pretty aggressive.

NO!!! Aggression does not exist here! KTHXDIE!!!

------------------
Truth is in the eye of the beholder.
Forum Rules

HAHAHA!