
Rockstar VP Dan Houser (left) expects Grand Theft Auto IV to be controversial when it launches on April 29th.
No surprise there.
Houser told the
Associated Press:
I expect [controversy] because we’ve had so much of it in the past. I wish people would treat video games the same as other media. They seem to not want to do that for reasons that I don’t understand. It’s a convenient enemy for people.
Indeed, the GTA series has long been the lightning rod for watchdogs of game content. Frequent Rockstar critic Jack Thompson has
already indicated that he is gearing up to take on GTA IV:
Thompson will, in the days and weeks ahead, be contacting state and federal officials to stop the improper sales of Grand Theft Auto IV to anyone under seventeen years of age...
Comments
Of course there is going to be controversy, everything Rockstar outs out gets attacked by all the self-appointed watchdog groups. I think someone even had a problem with Table Tennis.
This is what's going to happen; Jack and the Fruit Loop Brigade will release reports and pres releases about how awful GTA IV is without ever having played it. Much of what they say will be complete bollocks (of the "you get points for killing cops" variety, but also expect at least one "You can recreate 9-11" in there), but there wil be just enough truth that the mainstream media will latch onto it.
The medi will drag out Thompson and/or other members of the Fruit Loop Brigade to come on and talk about how awful this game (and games in general) are. If anyone who is pro-game is allowed a voice they will be picked for their inability to speak well, they will be mocked, or they will just not be allowed to speak. One has to remember that mainstream media dislikes video games since if you are playing a video game, you are probably not watching their network.
One or two stores, seeking to get in on that free press, will announce that they will not carry the game, but most stores will. The game will sell out pretty much everywhere on the first day, and the stores that so proudly trumpeted that they will not carry the game will quietly start carrying it once they realize how much they lost out on in sales.
Really if Rockstar wanted to make this game as controversial as possible then there was much, much more things they could've done, tons of things involving 9/11 spring to mind immediately. And of course if Rockstar didn't want to do that then the simple addition of children as pedestrians would be more than enough (plus they could write it off as simply being more realistic, since it be kinda hard to live in a city the size of New York and never see children in the street).
Most of the controversy around Grand Theft Auto is undeserved, exaggerated and/or down right Bullshit.
Hot Coffe
Encouraging people to kill cops (or prostitutes)
Teaches people to kill
The Vice City "Kill all haitans" mumbo jumbo.
The only media-generated controversy that can even remotely be called well-deserved is that the game is very violent and sexual, but that shouldn't be an issue since it's rated appropriately.
"Gran Turismo, which brands itself as The Real Driving Simulator, is in fact that. Only, it is a street racing simulator. It teaches children how to run over pedestrians, evade pursuits, bump other drivers and drive at high speeds. Not to mention. If the player can beat all the times in time trial mode, then the player is treated to a sex game even worse than GTA and Bully combined! And even worse! It teaches that nothing happens to you if you crash! Think of all the children who would go street racing and then kill both themselves and some innocent bystander by crashing into them and into a wall! This is horrible!"
And then everyone would laugh at Jack Thompson, except for a few morons who'd view this as truth for some reason.
Uh, no shit.
...gta is always attacked because they make it so damn easy to make it look bad,R* uses the hype and the fact that with old lawyers from miami dont like it to propel their sales.
Rockstar is a huge publicity whore if one of their games dosent piss off jack they dont bother finishing it
long story short millions of copys will be sold and R* will save money on ads because jack thompson is stupid and likes playing into peoples hands.
If R* didnt exist a large sum of the controversy surronding videogames would vanish with it
(not all,as some idiots would nitpick other games example=mass effect)
damn,right when they were running out of steam too
Good! the whole lever people are using on stopping video games is that they're being sold to unnacompanied children/teens below the recommended rating, which is against store policy.
if retailers can reach an acceptable level of enforcement (i personaly would like to see 95%+) then the 'protect the children' argument will be over, because we'll all be doing our part to ensure it, whilst not infringing on parental rights on the matter (hence my use of the word unaccompanied)
No shit/
Although it's pretty funny at this point. Saints Row, the GTA clone, was more violent (I say that because of terrorist bombings and the ability to use pipe bombs and the constant gang warfare), and was far more offensive (language, all gangs were racial stereotypes). Yet there was hardly a peep made about it because they pulled out any overly sexual content.
Personally, I'll be offended if this isn't the most offensive game ever made. All the waiting better not have been in vein!
Quick question for you, why are games singled out? After all, the enforcement rating is dramatically higher than music and movies enforcement. Books have no enforcement. Why are retailers being painted as society corruptors because Lil Billy Sunovabitch got his hands on Devil May Cry from the bargain bins but nothing is said if same Billy bought a copy of American Psycho unchecked? I don't understand why video games are the least violent media out there yet the most attacked. I mean, between Billy playing a game where he is killing demons and reading a book where a yuppy rapes a severed head, I cannot for the life of me figure out why DMC is the more evil of the two.
But also let's put it this way. Parents, according to the FTC, are present for well over 90% of video game purchases for children 16 or younger. I worked retail, I know this to be true. Now, when you work retail, you get people angry when you point out game ratings. You're trying to raise their kid for them? How dare you, blah da fucking blah. Eventually cashiers and store clerks get to a point where they just give up on the warnings because of the headache. A 13 year old isn't going to have the $60 for GTA IV, his parent is. See Hot Coffee scandal. The sex portion was the part that made all these parents upset they bought this game for their preteenagers... EVIDENCE!
So as a society, I say fuck protecting the stupid. I'm tired of showing ID at Best Buy everytime I buy an M rated game. I'm nearly 30! And in the lane right next to me is another soccer mom too busy to look at the game she's buying her kid and Lil Billy Sunovabitch is pleased as punch his mother doesn't have the slightest clue what Soldier of Fortune is...
@Monkeyface
Rockstar's controversy's are a good and bad thing. On the good, it helps push boundaries. The medium is able to grow up because they are constantly proving more than children play games. On the bad, it makes them a target.
But when we have an MMO aiming to be the bloodiest MMO ever, Ninja Gaiden II showing sickening displays of dismemberment, and Soldier of Fortune perfecting their gore engine, do you REALLY think Rockstar leaving the industry would save us all controversy? Really?!? Look, for every Rockstar game you list, I can find you 10 worse games from the same era. In some ways, Rockstar diverts attention...
Actually, no, we would have just as much drama over another game.
And the controversy didn't sell the last few GTAs for me, the game itself did.
@Steve
Don't forget the insurance fraud.
Scuba divers said that they will get wet when they jump in the water.
News at eleven.
That's provided of course he's got any semblance of legitimacy left with anyone, especially if he's disbarred!
Lol, reminds me of a road sign I've seen. "Water on road during rain."
Maybe one day a GTA will be released that won't raise such a fuss. But that might be in a few decades or so.
Rockstar's Midnight Club series contradicts that statement.
- Warren Lewis
Here's a question for you: When you jump in the water, do you get wet or does the water get you?
(A internet flavored cookie if anyone can discern the lyrics I mangled to get that line)
Anyway, my empathy for Rockstar is very low. GTAIV seems to be just another in the increasingly bad line of re-hashes of a once revolutionary idea. Of course, it's not out yet, so I am open to being mistaken.
"After all, the enforcement rating is dramatically higher than music and movies enforcement."
Just because other media get a pass does not make it right... essentially all media should have good self-regulation, games, movies and so forth a like. Really, video games should continue their self-enforcement and other forms of media should follow them by example. Just because someone says video games should increase their self-enforcement does not automatically mean that they are fine with the current standard of other media... that's jumping to conclusions and putting words in their mouths
I've often wondered that about books myself. When I was in junior high I was already reading Stephen King novels like "Pet Sematary" and "It", both of which contain graphic content. I would go into stores and buy books like these and no one questioned it.
I have come to a couple conclusions about this;
1. We consider books to be somewhat sacred. With historical instances of censorship and book burnings, people are afraid of really speaking out against books in general.
2. This is the important one. I do not think your average Joe Gangbanger is a big reader. Reading is usually indicitive of some intelligence (IMO), and your average street thug is generally lacking in the brains department. I know this is a sweeping generalization, but it fits my expereicne with these types of people (some of the gangers around when I was in school would actually have trouble with the word "the").
BTW, I am not drawing the above generalization along any racial lines; stupid comes in every colour.
And getting 5 stars.
That's what is so damn funny, the censors are the cause, not the cure, and they're too far up their own self-importance to realise it.
i think, that its because they're (relatively) new, compared to other forms of entertainment.
whenever something new comes out that isn't owned by the big companies, they'll fight it.
it was the same when Cable/Satelite first happened. Torrenting was the same when it started, though i note the BBC uses it with its iPlayer.
basically, until its mainstream and established, people will take shots at it.
i personally would want the movies and so forth enforced too, though i believe that retail businesses are better at movies, than games.
why? probably because movies have been around longer, and people are used to them.
just my 2 cents.
Look at the release of 3 screen shots of Bully a year before the game was released. All the promotion in the world was given to them on a silver platter. All they had to do was fill the pre-orders.
That is their model and it has made them very successful.
I am a little surprised they have not at least 'tweeked' their methods. But there is plenty of time for that.
And we will be watching to see if Jacko's going to be forced to sell "Hot Coffee" on the streets if he gets disbarred.
As far as I know, children can still see rated R movies if accompanied by a parent (or is it just an adult?).
I also don't want to be prevented from buying the game if I am of the right age. JT's usually want to prevent the game from falling into anyone's hands, by claiming they are preventing it from falling into childrens hands. However, any place that sells rated R DVD's should already have a system in place to check for ID, this includes WalMart, Target, BestBuy, etc... I know GameStop has cranked up the internal heat, the others should have also. I just don't think it should be a federal crime, mearly a standard company policy, of which any company policy has always had a penalty "up to and including termination."
Basically, with Thompson, it's become more about vendetta and profit than any kind of altruism, that became apparent when he saw how much money Halo 3 was going to make and tried to leap onto a profit-making bandwagon, however, in his usual 'Inspector Clouseu' style he botched it entirely. It was odd how Thompson completely ignored it's existence, making no 'run-up' statements like he does with Rockstar games. It was pretty apparent that it was a mad dash for a cash-cow he hadn't noticed until it was too late.
So yes, I wouldn't be surprised if GTA IV caused controversy, I also wouldn't be surprised if Thompson manages to find, in his arrogance, several quotes, statements and actions in the game that are a 'direct threat to his safety', that will probably be the tack he takes this time., accusing the game of being a direct attack on his person and demanding it be removed from the shelves.
It's kind of odd, considering Thompsons' stated goals that his solution to almost any game he takes offence to is to try and get the game declared a public nuisance so that they would be removed from the shelves entirely. I don't call that restriction in the slightest, I call it censorship.
Anyway, that said, he's irrelevant now, thanks to his own actions, he's 95% bluster and hot air and I personally will be glad to see the back of him so that, hopefully, a sensible, and more importantly, a truthful debate might take place instead of all this 'The sky is falling!' crap.
He doesn't just expect controversy, he actively wants and supports it. While I actually enjoy their games, its time they were honest and just came out and said "we make shocking games because it gets us headlines".
So is he not trying to ban it or is he just omitting that bit?
Either way I honestly doubt that GTA IV will cause controversy. It's set in a fictionalised New York but has no mention of ground zero. You can fly helicopters, and yes you could crash them into buildings but unless that building is smaller than a house I highly doubt that you could destroy the building with it so that's moot. Rockstar would have to be the biggest idiots alive to not delete anything that could cause Hot Coffee, and there is very little chance of an AO rating so we probably won't see a repeat of Manhunt.
Oh and of course the game doesn't really add anything new in terms of noteworthy controversy. Yes you can still kill cops and prostitutes, yes it will still be super violent. But come on that's all ready been exaggerated to ad naseum for San Andreas. What will the news headline be "Rockstar games released Grand Theft Auto IV, which besides more realistic graphics and physics is still the same exact game we caused a hissy fit over last time . . . now onto the weather."
Give me a break.
You CAN'T recreate 9/11 the only thing you can fly in this game is a helicopter. And even assuming said helicopter could destroy a skyscraper in the game (that's assuming rockstar was dumb enough to let that happen) it would be hard to pull off 9/11 (that's assuming that destroying two skyscrapers (the WTC isn't in the game) would qualify). You'd need to get a helicopter get it going at high speeds, propel yourself towards a skyscraper jump out at the last second, release a parachute, then find another copter and another parachute and do it again. Personally I prefer Rampage for destroying tall buildings and 'plane hits building, plane explodes, nothing happens to the building,' is in a lot of games.
I know that. I was giving that as an exanmple of what I expect to hear from the Fruit Loop Brigade, although I probably should not be giving them any ideas. Just because it is not true does not mean that Faux News won't report it if some self described "expert" says it's true.
I love the Rampage games. Rampage was the first video game I really enjoyed playing as a kid. There's just something fun about destroying cities... in games that is.
Personally I doubt they will "you can recreate 9/11" then they show a video of a helicopter slamming into a skyscraper and blowing up, I doubt that most people would be convinced.
Although they could get someone else to say it.
In any case I don't really see why they would bother unless it gets blamed for some random murder.
What I was really getting at is not that Rockstar make controversial games deliberately to cause that controversy, but that the very controversy, and the sales and popularity generated by it, are what makes the keep making sequels.
Yes, I fully agree it's market force that powers the existence of these games, but if Thompson should be taking Rockstar to court for anything, it's backpay from their advertising department.
Taboo's are the greatest temptation known to man, and attempting to decry or destroy something is a surefire way of attracting attention to it. So yes, consumer pressure is what led to GTA IV being written, but Thompson etc are a large cause of that consumer interest in the series, young adults, particularly males, like to do things that they are 'forbidden' to do, so if an old guy with white hair comes along and starts preaching on TV about how evil and terrible a game is, most young males first reaction is going to be 'I've gotta see this!'. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Thompson is indirectly responsible for a lot of under-age purchases of GTA 3, so yes, I do think that it pays Rockstar to keep that controversy going.
I'll accept, however, that Rockstar don't only write controversial games, Table Tennis isn't really that controversial, and you'd have to be pretty imaginative to include a 'Hot Coffee' with it, after all, a Ping Pong table can only stand so much punishment....
GTA is, for me, much the same thing, it's not an exceptional game, it's interesting, I like Sandbox environments, and I won't deny that I'm looking forward to sampling the atmosphere of the city in GTA IV, I played GTA 3, and was far more impressed by it's scope than by the storyline itself, which I never completed. What made it a legend in the computer game industry is, once again, the controversy caused by other people, right from it's first release, if it hadn't been for that, it probably would have never got to the number of iterations that it has, and clones certainly would not have begun to appear.
But yeah, its Rockstar/Take-Two and this kinda crap happens all the time, and no, they don't rely on publicity like people think, its just received due to all the watch dog groups, and Jack Thompson.
I think if someone gets Faux News, or really any other news program to report it, then it will be beleived. People are far too trustisng of news in a time where information takes a back seat to ratings. People are more likely to pay attention to a story called "se"xbox than a well thought out and written news story refuting ludicrous claims by the latest attention whore who wants the entire world to be made of Nerf so the little kiddies need never be exposed to any rough edges, and people will beleive it. If you don't believe it, then consider how many years we have been hearing that you get "points" for killing cops, or that killing hookers is an integral part of the gameplay.
It will get blamed for a murder. Jack-o was making his career trying to free murderers from any personal responsibility for a while there while trying to make it be all GTA's fault. Someone who played a GTA game at some point in their life will kill someone else, and it will be GTA's fault. Remember that Doom was responsible for the Columbine murders because the two little cretins played Doom a few years earlier. The average sheep-like members of the public ate that up because they didn't know any better, and they trusted the media.
http://fanboys-online.com/index.php?cid=6
>.