Catholic Exchange Forums » Faith and Life

RE: Applauding “Grand Theft”

(10 posts)

EricT - Member

I tried to reply in the comments section on that article, but it doesn't seem to work.

"Why is it so good? 'It never makes concessions in the name of being politically correct, living up to its M-rating with gusto - there’s tons of swearing, violence, and sexual innuendo.'"

That's incredibly deceptive. Aren't Christians supposed to value honesty?

Every GTA title has has "lived up to it's M-rating". The reason this latest installment is so critically acclaimed is it's narrative; the writing, and story telling in general, has been greatly improved. All the reviews are clear about this. The reviews have also reported that the violence is tamed down, the consequences made more realistic, and our protagonist has been given a conscience. He doesn't like killing for killing's sake, he sometimes saves those he's been ordered to kill; he doesn't use drugs or approve of drug use; he's got a girlfriend who he takes out to dinner, bowling, night clubs, etc.; he can help little old ladies cross the street -- there's a wide range of activities outside the narrow band you are using to characterize the game. It's a cheap and deceptive tactic.

"But that argument isn’t helped by the news report that a San Diego man doused video-game store employees with mace to steal the game."

If the same thing happens at a football game, does that mean football causes violence? School shootings are a lot more common than videogame-line shootings, does that mean school turns you into a murderer? What about the millions of other people waiting for the game who *didn't* stab each other?

Confounding correlation with causation is, at best, stupid. At worst, it's dishonest.

"In 2004, Drs. Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl Olson, co-founders of the Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health and Media, undertook a $1.5 million study funded by the Department of Justice on the effects of video games on young teenagers."

You mention that the study found kids play GTA, but you *don't* mention that the same study found gameplay was a marker for social competence, and that kids who *don't* play games are more likely to do poorly in school and to get in fights. As violent videogames have been on the rise, youth violence has been declining. That doesn't mean the former causes the later, but it certainly doesn't support your "violent games are ruining our children" theory.

"stores cannot sell children pornographic magazines or handguns - but they can legally sell video games to children that contain pornographic content"

Pornographic content? The best you can get in GTA is a 'lap dance': a woman in a *bikini* dances in front of you. No nudity anywhere in the game. No touching allowed. If you try, the bouncers kick you out of the club. It's incredibly tame. Network TV has far more sexual content.

"that teach children how to gun down cops."

That's absurd.

First, GTA players don't "gun down cops": they wiggle their fingers on a controller, causing pixels on a screen to change color. That's it. There's a massive distinction between doing something in a game and doing it in real life. I can throw a football 80 yards Madden, yet I can't throw a real football to save my life. If you were running a cop-killing boot camp, 'finger wiggling' would not be one of your training activities.

Second, does playing with army men 'teach your children to gun down soldiers'?! I played with toy guns as a kid, I have toy guns in the house today, yet would *never* own a real gun. I've 'killed' tens of thousands of 'people' in videogames over the course of my life, yet I'm no more prepared to take a *real* human life, or even witness such a thing, that you are.

It's a pitty that you unable to distinguish between fiction and reality, because your kids can. Yes, you need to be careful with very young children (toddlers), but a 10 year old who watches Superman doesn't think he can fly.

Little boys have been playing their generation's equivalent of 'cowboys and Indians' or 'cops and robbers' for as long as their have been little boys. It doesn't turn them into sociopaths, it's a normal part of development. GTA is digital Hot Wheels and action figures.

Of course, there's nothing new about parents reacting hysterically to the unfamiliar. As a GTA producer said, "It's the coming of the railways, it's Elvis shaking his hips. It's cars going over 25 miles per hour and making people explode." You can add bathing suits that don't cover the ankle, movies, comic books, rock and roll, and much more. Apparently the invention of the girdle caused quite the uproar. It just goes to show, people don't learn from history.

Posted 6 months ago #
mkochan - Moderator

Its this kind of intelligent contoversy that made our comments so much fun -- thanks for a great contribution. Our comments section will soon be back -- along with a redesigned site!

Posted 6 months ago #
fishman - Member

I didn't read the article.
However there I have paid A LOT of attention to this issue in general, considering it directly pertains to my industry.

Some simply things do consider.
Fantasizing , thinking about , or imaging youself doing something is very much as if you had done it.

The Bible says this:
"if a man looks at a woman with lust in his heart is guilty of adultry"'
and again "thou shall not covet.. anything your neighbor has.
"'--'covet means to IMAGE or think about getting something dishonestly;

There is NOTHING redeeming about grand theft auto ... any 'merit' it may have is simply a function of the fact that it isn't the worst thing out there.

Posted 6 months ago #
EricT - Member

"Fantasizing, thinking about, or imaging youself doing something is very much as if you had done it."

The idea that a purely mental activity could *ever* be considered the same as an actual act.. is terrifying, it's Orwellian. People have rich fantasy lives that have nothing to do with thier actual behavior. Trying to repress your human nature to that extent is perversion, and in my opinion leads to all kinds of abnormal behavior (see: celibate priests).

"The Bible says [...]"

Quoting a moral code laid down by an ancient, violent, misogynistic desert culture may carry weight with readers who share your religious indoctrination, but it has no persuasive value for me (quite the contrary).

"There is NOTHING redeeming about grand theft auto..."

It doesn't have to have redeeming qualities. It is what it is. It's entertainment. You may find it disturbing that people are entertained by violent media, but it's hardly new. GTA isn't teaching children to shoot each other any more than Tom and Jerry is teaching them to blow each other up with dynamite.

The reason I commented in the first place was not to extol the virtues of the game, or to claim it has 'redeeming' qualities, but to counter (1) gross misrepresentations being made of the game's content and (2) ridiculous conclusions being drawn (e.g. "it's teaching children how to gun down cops").

There's a shocking number of people rally against games have never actually played. It's like blind people warning against the dangers of the color green. The may convince other blind people, but nobody who can see takes them seriously.

A great example is a recent interview with Dan Isset, Director of Public Policy for Parents Television Council. To understand how clueless and irresponsible his criticisms were, a little info about drinking in GTA4:

You never have to drink in GTA4 (your character is opposed to substance use), but if you choose to go to a bar and get drunk, your friends will tell you not to drive, and the game will suggest you take a cab. If you ignore their warnings, you will find it very difficult to drive and are likely to crash. If cops see you (unavoidable, because the city is crawling with them), they will immediately arrest you. It's almost impossible to evade them, because you're drunk. In short, it's a very bad idea to drink and drive in GTA4.

Yet Isset publicly claimed that the game awards you points for driving drunk. When it was pointed out that the game doesn't have points, he backpeddled, "If nothing else, it’s a rewarded activity. Necessary for advancement." When told this was also untrue, he finally admitted he'd not actually played that part of the game.

Again, this is a policy directory at a media watchdog group, making declarative public statements about something that doesn't exist.

Posted 6 months ago #
fishman - Member

Eric:
This is a site dedicated to discussing issue from the prespective of the catholic church and catholic theolgy , which is based in part on the bible. You may not like it , but don't be surpised to see it quoated here. Besides that the bible is the moral law revealed by God to his choosen people. So it's contents are very relivant to most of the people participating in these discussions.

Secondly , it is fairly well proven in modern pshycology that imagining doing something repeatly can serve much the same purpose as actually doing it. There are whole techniques of treatment that revolve around that simple fact.

This is shored up even futher by some intresting mordern nerological studies, where it has been showen that much of the neural activity involved in going into a room and picking up cup appears exaclty the same in hi res magnetic imaging as imagining taking the same action. The theory is that human beings have an identical set of motor nerons that run parallel to the ones involved in taking an action. which basically means from the brains prespective thier is very little difference between imagining doing something and actually doing it.

Posted 6 months ago #
fishman - Member

As to weather or not a game, or all actions for that matter should be redeaming. That discussion would have to wait until you first believed that there was something to be redeemed from.

So you do not understand what I've written , because you did not take the time to even understand the terms I was using in thier context.

A context I might point out that you have aready claimed you do not believe to exists.

I'm very afraid discussing moral issues with you is going to be much like attempting to discuss math with someone who does not belive in numbers.

Might I make a suggestion. My suspicion is you are on this board for 1 of two reasons. Either you have questions or you have something to say. Why not start a new post and ask your questions directly or say what you think needs saying out right. It would probably be much more productive then reading thorugh all kinds of terms you don't understand about things you don't believe in.

Posted 6 months ago #
noelfitz - Member

Fishman and EricT

May I add to this discussion.

Here in this round-table we are mostly traditional Catholics, faithful to the Church and trying to understand its teaching and encourage and mutually build ourselves up.

However the morality of the Christians differed little from that of many good prople in the acncient world. Christians took over the cardinal virtues, which are pivotal - justice, fortitude, prudence and temperance - from Greek culture.

The supernatural virtrues of faith, hope and love (charity) are found in the OT. Christians inherited these from the Jews.
The OT especially the psalms speak of faith.

NRS Psalm 116:10 I kept my faith, even when I said, "I am greatly afflicted".

Faith, as trust in God, is fundamental to the OT.

Hope was also fundamental to the Jews, as seen in their covenants with God. The main theme in Job is also hope.

NRS Job 8:13 Such are the paths of all who forget God; the hope of the godless shall perish.

The whole of the old testament can be summed up (as Jesus pointed out) in love of God and neighbor.

NRS Deuteronomy 6:5 You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.

NRS Leviticus 19:18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.

What makes Chrisitanity unique and vital is Jesus Christ.

God bless,

Noelfitz.

Posted 6 months ago #
EricT - Member

"but don't be surpised to see it quoated here"

I didn't say I was surprised, I just point out that it's a fallacious argument (appeal to authority) which is especially unlikely to work with me, because I completely reject the authority of your source.

"it is fairly well proven in modern pshycology that imagining doing something repeatly can serve much the same purpose as actually doing it"

If someone points a gun at you and pulls the trigger, their purposes is to make you dead. Merely *imagining* doing so is incapable of harming you in any way, it therefore does *not* serve 'the same purpose as actually doing it'.

I just imagined killing you. Are you dead?

I just imagined killing you again. I'm a murderer now? Should I turn myself into the police? Should I tell them that 'fishman' taught me thinking something and doing it are pretty much the same, please lock me up?

"it has been showen that much of the neural activity involved in going into a room and picking up cup appears exaclty the same in hi res magnetic imaging as imagining taking the same action"

That's not applicable. If you were to close your eyes and imagine running down a city street, hot sun on your back, imagine *really* pulling a gun on a police officer, imagine the weight of it on the end of your arm, imagine the fear in his eyes, imagine squeezing the trigger, the explosion, the gun kicking painfully in your hand, the officer's body jerking from the impact, etc. -- I suppose it's theoretically possible that you could activate some of the same neuronal pathways used in actually committing a murder. You'd need one hell of an imagination, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Playing a game is nothing remotely like that. It's far more abstract. Yes, you direct the actions of the protagonist, but it's highly stylized, it doesn't look like you, sound like you, move like you; you're not imagining what it's like to physically perform those actions yourself, you merely watch them play out on a small, 2D screen. It's vastly different from the kind of mental exercises you're referencing. There's *no* evidence suggesting that playing a football game, for instance, causes anywhere near the same neuronal activity as actually playing football.

"I'm very afraid discussing moral issues with you is going to be much like attempting to discuss math with someone who does not belive in numbers."

I don't consider ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority to be a reasonable form of discourse, so if I'm interested in debate, I'll do it elsewhere. Thanks.

As to why I was here, I already stated that. I Googled blogs for 'gta', stumbled on an erroneous and misleading criticism of the game on this site, and felt compelled to reply. So I did. I won't bother you further.

Thanks, mkochan, for the warm welcome. ;)

See ya,
Eric

Posted 6 months ago #
michaelme - Member

Wow! Finding the article from which this post proceeds was incredibly difficult. Google “gta catholic exchange” link to N4G.com and, fortunately, they linked to the article in a semi-critique of the CE article.

"Why is it so good? 'It never makes concessions in the name of being politically correct, living up to its M-rating with gusto - there’s tons of swearing, violence, and sexual innuendo.'"

That's incredibly deceptive. Aren't Christians supposed to value honesty?"

I’m not quite sure of Eric’s point, here. The quote was sourced properly, so, beyond that, I fail to see the dishonesty. Whether or not “[e]very GTA title has has [sic] ‘lived up to it’s M-rating’” is irrelevant to the author’s point – that this particular critical acclaim brought “swearing, violence, and sexual innuendo” to the fore – that’s not the author’s assessment but Game Pro’s.

That said, I am trying neither to defend the author of the article nor deride Eric’s well reasoned (in many cases) critique of same. Anecdotes of the type the article’s author used can be equally well applied to the Air Jordan’s of yesteryear, the iPods of last, or the GTAs of today. Similarly, Eric’s uncontested use of a species of ad hominem in a later post

“Quoting a moral code laid down by an ancient, violent, misogynistic desert culture may carry weight with readers who share your religious indoctrination, but it has no persuasive value for me (quite the contrary).”

and misapplied appeal to authority label for Christopher’s biblical quote (that Eric is not moved by the Bible’s authority on moral matters is not an argument that it is not such an authority) all show that we, as Catholics, are unprepared in many ways to engage the culture in situ on matters of reason and faith in order to demonstrate that true Christianity (in particular as found in the teachings of our Catholic faith) is not the antithesis of reason, but reason’s fulfillment.

I hope Eric chooses to stay to provoke further debate like that above. Unhappily, I am only able to read these topics about every two to three weeks and can’t engage as often as I would like or as I have formerly.

In Christ,
Michael

Posted 6 months ago #
noelfitz - Member

Michael,

Great to hear from you.

I am sorry you cannot read these topics more frequently.

It is quite some time since there was a post here.

Now that the CE site is much improved I would like to ask for more contributions to this round-table

Regards,

Noelfitz.

Posted 6 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

Donate

Welcome to our redesigned site. Your continued support will make further improvements possible. Please click here to donate.

CE Spotlight

Faith Factory

Champions of Faith Ad

Radio & Podcasts


Rock Solid with Mark Shea: April 14, 2008 - Confirmation: Piety and Knowledge