May 12, 2008 -
In the latest media whinge about GTA IV, syndicated columnist Susan Estrich (left), who ran Michael Dukakis' ill-fated 1988 presidential campaign, criticizes some of the game's non-interactive plot elements:From what I’ve heard about the ending... In one version, so I’m told, your cousin and his bride die in a drive-by shooting at their wedding. In another, your girlfriend gets killed...
GP: In the celebrated film The Godfather, Sonny Corleone is gunned down at a toll booth. Michael Corleone's first wife Appollonia, is blown up by a car bomb. The Godfather himself is badly wounded in an assassination attempt. And yet Michael carries on.
These are dramatic devices which advance the story. Why shouldn't a game feature such plot turns? Does Ms. Estrich understand that the player doesn't control these non-interactive cut scenes? Or would Estrich chastise the video game medium for employing the same dramatic license extended to cinema?
It's also interesting to note that, while Estrich's son (age unspecified) apparently enjoys GTA IV, she's worried about everyone else's kid:
There’s no question that our reviews of the latest in this infamous series are not in sync. [My son] thinks it’s a great new game...
It’s not my son I’m really worried about. He does well in school, follows the important rules and generally gets bored with most video games before they get in the way of life. It’s his generation, the generation that he is going to grow up in and live with, full of kids who take this stuff for granted and spend more time with it than with real life, that worries me.
GP: Estrich comes off as both out of touch and two-faced here. And, while we had previously noted Estrich's column, our old pal Jack Thompson informed us that she was once Dukasis' campaign manager.



Comments
Maybe you could have left that part out and just let people check the link to see the (major spoilers!!1)
Oh well, I am playing persona 3 fes now, so hopefully by the time I finish the 130+ hours of gameplay, I will forget about it. Can someone put down a spoiler-free explanation of this story? I am actually intrigued about what the article is supposed to be about. I only skimmed it, and only the spoiler stuck out...
That's why I saved her the first time I played. I haven't had the chance to replay and be the fullest potential of bahstard that I can be. :)
Nightwng2000
NW2K Sottware
Someone that is standing up and addressing the public should never talk about something they "Hear" especially when it isn't even completely true.
Second, I love the fact she talks about how her kid loves the game and how he has the right mentality to do what is right and not follow the game, but doesn't believe anyone else is! She is a Hypocrite and should be just another voice that goes away with much louder music.
Off topic did anyone get my Mean Street homage?
Did anyone stop to think, for even a second, that maybe the reason a kid in that environment turns out badly is because of the environment, not the game? It's crazy I know, but I think it's possible.
I let Kaiden die everytime. I hate his voice actor.
Yeah, I always tried to save Ashley. Never found much use for Kaiden.
“It’s a shame and a waste, and it portends a generation going down the tubes. “Rockstar,” my you-know-what. Shame on you. You owe the kids who worship you — and line your coffers — better than this garbage.”
Your standard for civil speech is obviously very different than mine. How exaclty is saying that a generation is going down the tubes, that a game that took hundreds of hours to create and vast amounts of money garbage and the markedly stupid "Rockstar, my you-know-what" comment civil? I may not like modern art, but I've never called a work I don't like "garbage".
She is also falling into the trap that video games are soley for children, and that simply is a faulty argument. All of the GTA games have been rated M, the rating that says not for those under 17. She also goes back to the argument that playing video games is going to destroy this generation. This not only shows a lack of knowledge about how long many gamers have been around, but it's also foolish to think a form on entertainment can erevocably damage an entire generation.
Well said.
You better not spoil part 2.
You forgot to mention how she started off saying that games won't nut up the little ones, then she hops into the usual "EVIIIIILLL!!!" arguement. CONTRADICTIVE MUCH???
Yeah I did forget that, I think at this point I just blank things like that because it has become so common for critics of video games to start off by claiming that games are not destructive, and then list off all the ways games will destroy the next generation.
It has almost reached the level that I could make a drinking games based on how soon from the starting sentence of "I respect the first amendment" or "video games will not destroy this generation" to the point were they list how games should be legislated or how the next generation will be filled with degenerates or murderers. Admittedly this would probably be just to dull the pain of insipid argument and no grasp of history by the authors.
Agreed. Thanks for having my back!
@ FroggersRevenge
As for the comment on honesty and communication, I can't see it that way. Maybe I'm getting paranoid, but I could only see her saying that she'd rather ban the medium and entertainment, but since her son will likely get it anyway, she wants to know. Don't see it that way? Notice that she says she SETTLED. That's a very telling word choice. I don't say I settle for something unless I wanted something else. For example, I settled for a burger, but I'd rather have a steak. Maybe I'm reading too deeply into it, but sometimes you have to in order to see the truth.
No problem, from the article it is fairly clear she has already made up her mind about GTA with only limited exposure to it. Further she uses tactics that make it extremely difficult to actually argue with here. This section especially
"Trying to prove that video games cause violence is a bit like trying to prove that pornography causes crime against women or even that the death penalty deters crime. Figures don’t lie, but people do — and they manipulate, as well. Most people who look at porn or play violent video games live normal, healthy lives, but that doesn’t mean they’re good for you. You can find states that have the death penalty and high murder rates, and states that don’t and have much lower murder rates".
How does one refute this? She has already said that just because she can see no ill effect doesn't mean their are none, she has also put forward the argument that statistics are an unreliable basis for an argument. She is essentially asking for objective proof that no harm can come from video games, while at the same time saying that statistics are not a valid way to show this.
If I tried to pull something like that is a class discussion my professor would rightly chastise me for using an argument that can't be refuted by evidence. Saying that games will have a detrimental effect even if the player in question shows no evidence is an abhorrent argument. She is essentially saying "you can't prove that there are absolutely no ill effects to playing games, so their probably are, also no statistics because those can be manipulated".
So while I applaud her openness with her son, and the fact that she believe in personal responsibility I have no intention of letting her off the hook for using at a minimum poor language to express her opinion and at the maximum using an argument that she knows cannot be refuted deliberately to make her opinion appear absolute.
This is not bash JT's wife or anyone that doesn't need a bashing. Personally I hope Patricia doesn't die, I sympathize with her on the grounds that her hubbie is an insane hypocrite *cough*JT*cough*
No, in that game she is murdered!
Oh, wait. Spoiler! How could we reveal such crucial information?
As for Susan Estrich, I'm surprised anyone can say that sort of stuff seriously. Even mentioning something like she did about how her son is good and everyone else's will turn into hardened criminals because they don't have her superior parenting is a sign that she's a bad parent and a bad person. People like her make me want to be an alien so I can at least claim I'm not part of the same species as her.
How does it reveal that though, there were two possible statements and you don't even know which one is right? Or did GTA4 advertise that it has exactly 2 possible endings? Even then you still don't know if what this person is regurgitating is true at all? I'm just not seeing how one sentence saying "I heard so and so dies in the end" can actually ruin seeing it happen and all the game play up to that point, and you've not done anything to convince me.
Maybe I'm strange, but especially in a game like this I'd hate the story if all the main characters got hero protection and lived. I enjoy the shows and games where main characters can die when things go wrong. My one brother stopped watching American movies cause he got fed up with all the hero protection crap. If anything this so-called "spoiler" has made me actually consider maybe playing this game.
You're going to have to do better than hearsay about "multiple possible deaths" to convince me that this is really a game wrecking spoiler worth all the whining I saw.
[sarcasm]
Uhh... Dude? Fina Fantasy VII came out YEARS ago. Who DOESN'T know that Aerith dies at the hands of Sephiroth?
[/sarcasm]
EDIT: @Matt Paprocki
Uhh... I can deal with spoilers, because the only thing it doesn't take from me is the actual experience of the event itself, so PLEASE forgive me when I say you're a f***ing pansy and you need to suck it up.
If you can't forgive me, then I say this.
No offense.
EDIT: Sorry for triple post but I would like to expand the @Matt Paprocki to being directed @EVERYONE who has complained about the GTA4 spoiler.