Print

[lowendfrequency]

QUOTE(fastTOE @ Jun 18 2006, 02:39 PM)

paranoia is right, the game isn't going to make someone do something that they wouldn't have done anyways.

Not true.
http://www.gamespot....ws_6077161.html

Listen, I'm not one of these fanatics that are picketing game companies to stop selling violent games.  I don't question Rockstar's right to publish GTA.  I just would have hoped that gamemakers would apply a tad bit of morals when it comes to certain subjects and audiences. I'm not trying to start a huge 'voilence in gaming' arguement, I was just giving my reasonings for not being excited about the new GTA.  Don't turn this into a political grudge match.

[fastTOE]

i dont want to turn this into an argument either,... i respect your opinion, i just don't agree...

like that article you posted,... there is obviously something ELSE wrong with those kids, "normal" people KNOW that by shooting a rifle at someone you are going to cause serious harm, and that is BAD.

i LOVE killing people in as many creative ways as possible in gta (and many other violent games for that matter), but i feel bad when i kill spiders.... so what does that mean?  you know?

it's a real hard argument because both sides has "proof" of their points, but... suffice it to say, i dont think rockstar should alter their story idea because of stupid kids killing people then trying to get out of it by blaming gta...    i loved the SA story, i always loved 'gangsta rap' and all those old gang movies (boyz n tha hood, juice, menace II society etc etc etc).... so i had a blast playing a 'gangsta' in that game, but i'm just a freakin white dude, so i'm not going to go out and tie green bandanas around my head and start running over people for the fun of it, you know? (i wouldnt do that if i wasnt a white dude either though.... just to clarify)

but like i said at the start, i'm not trying to attack your opinions or even start an argument (sorry, if this post is still kinda an argument i guess), but i'm just throwing out my views, i think parents need to take more responsibility of their kids actions (your link was a case and point for that arguement: the kids were 10 and 14 or someting).... so, yea, you have the right to your opinions, and the right to post 'em, and i have the right for mine,  so,.... thats that i guess.....

back to the topic maybe then.... or at least a new topic that was brought up,.... which movie do you think they are gonna base off of next?

maybe like 'once upon a time in mexico' or something? we know rockstar is into westerns, and this is not REALLY a western, but it might have enough "city" elements to keep it interesting, and still have a radical change of pace for the game.... i don't know....

[miggidy]

Psychos are psychos.
And they're going to kill regardless of what entertains them.

I mean what's next?
A bank robber blames Super Mario Brothers for giving him the idea of collecting gold coins?


Come on people, don't let these idiots get the best of you.
Blaming someone else for your shortcomings is the oldest scapegoat in the book....

[m_hael]

there are merits to both arguments... in a world where we protect from harm before we analyze the harm itself games will lose the argument.

read some psychology beyond 101, head towards the BAU area of the FBI and tell them that "psychos are psychos"... then look up the term "trigger event".

GTA and many other violent games could easily resonate and become a trigger event in certain people and thus they get attributed with "cause" ... its kinda like the argument for/against guns... if they didn't have the gun they couldn't pull the trigger; if they were not psychos already then a "trigger event" would not throw them over the edge.

we can't remove ALL trigger events... so why not try removing the gun?

[m_hael]

the engine from what I've seen is the same as before with a couple of extra's.

a nifty skin shader (to be removed for GTA)
normal mapping
more polys.
more lights.

the end.

[KAGE360]

QUOTE(m_hael @ Jun 20 2006, 08:43 AM)

the engine from what I've seen is the same as before with a couple of extra's.

a nifty skin shader (to be removed for GTA)
normal mapping
more polys.
more lights.

the end.

but the engine that was used before was the renderware engine, i thought that rockstar has built this engine themselves, isnt there copyright laws that would stop them from changing/altering someone elses engine and then calling it their own.  i thought that was the main point that they were planning on using this engine in GTA so they didnt have to pay for a 3rd party engine.

[m_hael]

renderware is/was not rocket science. To get things up and running they would have taken a LOT of its ideas and methods and "converted" it to their own tastes.

and by converted I mean cut & paste.

been there, done that.

[KAGE360]

QUOTE(m_hael @ Jun 20 2006, 10:53 AM)

renderware is/was not rocket science. To get things up and running they would have taken a LOT of its ideas and methods and "converted" it to their own tastes.

and by converted I mean cut & paste.

been there, done that.

i see thanks for the info, i just thought that it was elligal to do such a thing.  like if i paid for the doom 3 engine but then rewrote half of it and called it my own engine the next generation of consoles, you would figure someone would be wise to it.  maybe the commen use of a lot of technologies (especially renderware) would leave room for arguement though.

personally i never really cared for the renderware engine, even though it was really flexible.  the lack of effects and features just seemed outdated from the get-go to me.  the fact that it was developed for the ps2 in mind and is used in 1 out of every 4 ps2 games didnt help either.  the next gen version of renderware being used in MoA looks impressive though.

[Corrosive Substance]

lol

[Keshire]

*Throws 2 cents into Violence argument*

It's a per kid basis. Some wouldn't be impressioned by the violence some would.

Impressionable is the main word here. I know people who were followers until they were in their late 20's. And I also knew people who were firmly grounded in their own personality at age 6.

Myself personally wouldn't play blatently violent games in front of my little boy though. Or people that find it distasteful like my wife.

[James706]

The best part about GTA is the driving and the flying, followed closely by the characters, unique missions and storylines.

Even from the very first GTA's the driving was fun. Racing games got nothing on GTA.

As long as the game keeps that I'll be happy.

EDIT: About the Violence argument, Violent games are usually rated 18+ in the UK. Average adults should not be denied violent games. As for children, it is on a per kid basis whether or not they can handle it, thats were parents come in. You might say a child will get hold of an 18+ game regardless of its rating, but a child will get hold of alchohol even if its only sold to 18+, and alchohol will do more damage quicker. Furthermore if an adult is broken that a violent game makes him kill someone, well you can bet alchohol came in there somewhere aswell.