I'm not sure if posting about other games might bother the mods (it's not like they're gonna suffer losses anyways, GTA4 isn't released yet.)

IIRC, Grand Theft Auto IV will be released by next week (in the US).

I heard euphoria physics (http://www.naturalmotion.com/euphoria.htm#video) are used in the game.. not sure about it tho.

All I know is that GTA4 will have superior graphics.

I believe, that it is out worldwide on the 29th April.

Also, it would be better off to put this in the VIDEO GAMES thread.

I can't get this. I don't have an X360 or PS3.:(

I don't have an X360 or wii.:(

in the .tk forum YOU said YOU have a Wii

in the .tk forum YOU said YOU have a Wii

Stupid me. I meant PS3....:rolleyes:

Stupid me. I meant PS3....:rolleyes:
and why the friend code in your sig

I think he means he doesn't have a 360 or a PS3.

I, on the other hand, have both. I've pre-ordered the special edition of GTA4. Hopefully it's better than San Andreas was.

and why the friend code in your sig

So people know my friend code. What else?

I have to say, this game looks amazing.....:D

Hopefully it's better than San Andreas was.

I pre-ordered the special edition too. Yes the graphics were poor but the game was fun and long enough(200 hrs, 100%)

Tease!

http://www.joker.si/images/clank/14475_800.jpg

Rockstar has a hard time differentiating between Russians and Serbians according to that magazine under the game that I happen to be religious about. The game's main character is a mixture of both... with a Croatian name. :p

They say the first impressions are decent enough, though. But not my sort of thing for various reasons. Liked the 2D games in the series a lot better then these new ones, not to mention I don't own any consoles or a computer capable of running modern games. [Obviously a PC version of this is on its way.]

Obviously a PC version of this is on its way.
Really?
I do hope so.

The release day of the PC version will be the day when I upgrade my hardware.
Or more likely ditch the majority inside of my casing.

I've pre-ordered the special edition of GTA4. Hopefully it's better than San Andreas was.

It should be, since they didn't use ragdoll physics. And I heard that you can smash into buildings from their windows, and not enter via the main doors only.

Does anyone know about it?

It should be, since they didn't use ragdoll physics. And I heard that you can smash into buildings from their windows, and not enter via the main doors only.

Does anyone know about it?

Er, I'm talking specifically about the story, not the game engine. The engine for San Andreas was nice, but the story and characters were just horrible. The series, so far, has peaked at Vice City. From San Andreas onwards they just took it far too seriously.

Pity, really. Still, I guess we'll see when GTA4 arrives.

I heard euphoria physics (http://www.naturalmotion.com/euphoria.htm#video) are used in the game.. not sure about it tho.
gtaiv uses euphoria animation engine, which does add some to the gameplay and a lot to the looks of the game.

basically, instead of following animation frame-by-frame, euphoria treats each frame as sort of a target to strive for. it applies forces to the character model to attempt following the frames. these forces, together with environment interactions, act on the model. the model then responds to these forces just like a ragdoll would. when a character dies, the only thing that changes is that euphoria stops supplying these animation forces, and the model becomes a conventional ragdoll.

the result is very life-like animation and response to various interactions. its not a new idea, but euphoria is a very nice implementation of it, and gtaiv is the first game where it is taken to such a large scale.

Well, there's a lot of stuff at GameSpot (http://uk.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/grandtheftauto4/index.html?tag=tabs;summary), it includes videos trailers and previews and stuff if you haven't already seen them.

Er, I'm talking specifically about the story, not the game engine. The engine for San Andreas was nice, but the story and characters were just horrible. The series, so far, has peaked at Vice City. From San Andreas onwards they just took it far too seriously.

Pity, really. Still, I guess we'll see when GTA4 arrives.

Yeah, San Andreas is disappointing.

I liked GTA3 better tho.

other than the story, there is nothing wrong with san andreas. and honestly, when did gta games have a good story line? the game itself was done rather well. it had a reasonable aiming system, descent driving, improved ai, and a huge world. these are things that really count, imo.

maybe i'm a bit biased towards sa because it did a descent job with flying. i like flying. sue me. lack of airplanes in gta iv vexes me to no end. it wouldn't be so bad if gta did helicopters alright, but the flaws in helicopter physics are just abysmal. i know that most people couldn't get a properly simed heli off the ground, but they did manage to get close to fixed wing physics without making it too complex. why was this never done with helicopters? the few videos i've seen of helicopters in iv don't make think it changed.

I've pre-ordered the special edition of GTA4.

Did you pre-order it for the 360 or the PS3?

2 Days now till its out.... 2 Days....

My cousins getting this so i'll be able to try it out! yay!:D

other than the story, there is nothing wrong with san andreas.

This reminds me of something I played at a friend's house. Going with the protagonist's friends on a car. You drive. Something goes wrong, and, surviving...

"Your friends are dead. Mission failed."

Go back to the house... And they are there, like if nothing happened. Yeah, normal in a videogame, but still odd. We ended killing them in the most ridiculous ways... leave them in the car in the middle of the gang you have to kill, blow them up with the rocket launcher, throw them off a cliff...

aaaah... good times.

Er, I'm talking specifically about the story, not the game engine. The engine for San Andreas was nice, but the story and characters were just horrible. The series, so far, has peaked at Vice City. From San Andreas onwards they just took it far too seriously.

Vice City was the whole 'labour of love' thing, rockstars chance to prove that GTA3 wasnt a fluke but in fact would be wholeheartidly trumped now they knew what they were doing.

With San Andreas, on the other hand, they burnt themselves out trying to outbig everything else that had ever existed in a desperate attempt to make a further leap Vice City, as Vice City did for GTA3. By overreaching their fundamentals (story, characters) suffered (though personally, its GTA, who gives a **** about story! :))

Stories (both Liberty and Vice) were little more than knock-offs. At best they were technical excersises in how much could be scaled down to fit onto a portable device. Not that they were bad, just didnt benefit from the same efforts as the 'proper' games and so only survived with the core GTA experience intact.

GTA4 is the first real sequel since GTA3, and so quite rightly everything has been stripped back and redone. This clearly shows in the final product: a game with every opportunity to make Vice City appear a shuffling geriatric mish-mash of tired gaming concepts.

The above is, of course, entirely speculation. Seriously, even I can spot nonsense bits in places


On a more coherant note: 'Woo! Im getting it Tuesday! :D (PS3)'

This reminds me of something I played at a friend's house. Going with the protagonist's friends on a car. You drive. Something goes wrong, and, surviving...

"Your friends are dead. Mission failed."

Go back to the house... And they are there, like if nothing happened.
i always wondered if you could develop a game where this doesn't happen.

sure, there are games like deus ex/de: invisible war. there, if you could get to a character and kill him/her, they stayed dead, and it actually affected the story line. but that's exactly why key characters rarely met you in person, and talked to you via little-voice-in-your-head-thanks-to-all-the-electronics-they-stuffed-in-there. the fact that you could occaionally meet a key character and slaughter them on the spot did add to a feeling that your actions in the game mattered to the story. no, they really didn't, and you could still select any of the endings right through the very last level. but it still added to immersion in the story.

but the interest, of course, would be in making this work in a complete open-world environment. something where the player can meet any of the characters at any time, and rather than have a completly un-controlled cut-scene, have a 'chat' with them gordon freeman style. that is, they chat, and you can walk around and knock expensive equipment off the table. and then, "oops" some friendly fire. the ever-important character dies, and isn't there anymore to give you a mission that you need to complete the game. now what?

for one thing, i think open world games can take a few ideas from shooters. what happens if a key character you are meant to protect dies in fps? game over. you don't just run back to the start of the mission. it just ends. you have to load a previous saved game or start over. why not use this in gta-like games? sure, the game wants you to feel like there is no real end, but seriously, when was the last time that after dying in a mission you went around collecting all your weapons again? no, you just load the last game, and try again. so why not just give some sort of a, "you just lost the game," message (mean, i know). it still lets you run around freely, but you can't finish game from here. you have to load up an old saved game and try from there.

another approach, which would really be interesting to see in a game, would be not to have any all-important characters at all. any time you kill a character who is meant to give you an important mission, you simply have to get that mission from someone else. maybe, do a few pointless, generic missions first to meet that character. that would require the game to essentially generate new characters on the fly, but the only real issue here is getting all the voice acting done. so you'd end up with 10 different copies of the dialog for every mission. is that really such a big deal?

p.s. sorry about the rant. this has been on my mind for a while.

p.s. sorry about the rant. this has been on my mind for a while.

I actually found that interesting. The story line could also go tree-branch style, including the most ridiculous choices like the "oops, friendly fire". I could even see funny endings like the main character inside a madhouse whispering "I have to kill them all... I have to kill them all...". (if you kill all main characters, that is :p)

that reminds me of another game that a lot of open-worlders can borrow from. civilization. in particular, the win-conditions being so different. sure, you could win by simply wiping out every opponent, but it is not necessary. you could also win by extending various alliances and simply getting ahead in technological advances, culminating in reaching alpha centauri.

and as far as branching goes, many games have done it, but none too successfully. again, looking at deus ex and its sequel as excellent examples of it. if you play it carefully (read, don't kill important characters too early) you still have every ending available to you in the last 5 minutes of gameplay, and that includes the hidden ending in invisible war. sure, it is convenient for seeing every ending, but you can hardly call that branching.

but it is easy to see why it is done this way. it would take a lot of extra work to develop levels for proper branching. and if you didn't, a lot of players would be turned off by the idea of having to go through the same levels again, do the same exact thing with a minor change, just to see another ending. most people wouldn't bother.

open-worlders aren't plagued by this problem. sure, you'd still have to write the story for every branch, but that tends to come naturally to most writers. or at least, i am told so by the few writers that i know. so the extra load comes primarily in terms of extra scripting: dialog and event code. the world is already there, so the most difficult part of making story branches - building the new levels, is out.

with a system like this, who wouldn't want to load a game from a few hours of gameplay back and try an alternative route? you'll have a whole new set of missions and a new outcome of the game. that's extra non-repetitive gameplay time. and to avoid the pitfalls of, "crap, i over-wrote that save long time ago," you'd simply use a chapter system, which, again, has existed for years in the fps arena.

i suppose, the main reason we haven't seen all that is because open-worlders are a fairly new direction in gaming, (bar mmo rpg) and a lot of people still look at it as a genre of its own: gta-clones. open-worlders don't have to be gta, though. look at burnout paradise. it has some flaws, but it is an excellent game that utilizes an open world in a very different way. i'm sure that as open-worlders mature, we'll see that it isn't a new genre at all, but rather a new way to do existing genres, and we'll start seeing games with much different ways of telling a story.

that reminds me of another game that a lot of open-worlders can borrow from. civilization. in particular, the win-conditions being so different. sure, you could win by simply wiping out every opponent, but it is not necessary. you could also win by extending various alliances and simply getting ahead in technological advances, culminating in reaching alpha centauri.
In fairness, considering how crap the endings were in that game, it's more like a different way to beat a mission than a split in a story.

In fairness, considering how crap the endings were in that game, it's more like a different way to beat a mission than a split in a story.
that's why people liked the secret ending in invisible war and called it "the real ending". only such non sequitur can properly cap off the story that preceded it.

but what really frustrates me is that i liked the invisible war anyways. it is frustrating because that makes me realize how good of a game it could have been if done properly, and that nobody has actually done that until this very day. deus ex has been out for 8 years, and nobody has managed to make a game that could carry its torch in the fps rpg genre.

p.s. that said, deus ex 3 is in the works, and i will be getting a copy upon release. to like or to hate, only time will tell.

Ahh! The memories!

In Deus Ex when Anna Navarre ordered me to kill Lebedev on the 747, I shot at her instead and drove her into a previously place LAM mine.
A big bang and I though she was dead.

But no! I went around the corner only to see that she suddenly has turned into a ghost!
Yes, her 3D model had turned completely color-less and translucent, but other than that was still the same.
Only creeped out to death (pun) and running away from me, trying to hide in a cupboard.

I fired a few shots into her ghostly head and shed bled, screamed and died. Finally.
That was one of the more memorable and strange moments in Deus Ex. :-/

Anyway, I always loved how you can supposedly play through the game without killing (maybe even without even stunning) a single person. Not that I have ever accomplished that.

Ahh! The memories!

In Deus Ex when Anna Navarre ordered me to kill Lebedev on the 747, I shot at her instead.
it was nice how they anticipated this kind of a decision and made the dialog work either way. but other than having to stun/kill/sneak-by a few more guards here and there, it made absolutely no difference.

I really hope they announce a PC version before I accidently buy a PS3, that would be tragic.

Also, I need to play Vice City again..

I'm getting mine in 10 hours (if everything goes as planned)

I'm getting mine in 10 hours (if everything goes as planned)
6 hours. :p

of course, there are people down under who are already playing. midnight release + time zones, and all that.

Sorry, remind me how old you are again Quakers?

Twenty-two.

Sorry, I mentally replace your name with Shadowmoon's. Probably because I mentally lump you into the same group of people (that being People I Disagree With).

Sorry, I mentally replace your name with Shadowmoon's. Probably because I mentally lump you into the same group of people (that being People I Disagree With).

Before you two begin, stop :p

Use the PMs this time.

I wasn't planning on starting anything, just explaining why I was questioning Quaker's age. Answer: I was having a Brain Fart moment.

That said, Shadowmoon is still going to play it, and Yauhui has stated he's a fan of the series. This raises various Moral Questions.

Meanwhile, I'll be over here throwing rocks at people who get GTA IV because I CAN'T PLAY IT.

*throws rocks*
...
:(

:cool:

*gets hit by mtlangelus' rock, but doesn't care, because he now has a copy*

will post non-spoiler observations some time later.

Curses for only a PS2! D:<
Chalk up another reason for me to get a 360 or a PS3...

I wasn't planning on starting anything, just explaining why I was questioning Quaker's age. Answer: I was having a Brain Fart moment.

That said, Shadowmoon is still going to play it, and Yauhui has stated he's a fan of the series. This raises various Moral Questions.

Come on, i'm only 5 years under the age limit.

Oh no, lets not start the age limit thing again.

very san-andreasey. new wanted system is interesting.

Come on, i'm only 5 years under the age limit.

Oh no, lets not start the age limit thing again.

How could you possibly imply 5 years is a short time by using the term "only" when it's around 50% of your life time so far?

Oh man. I'm waiting for a Parcelforce van to appear outside my house. I can't stop looking out the window :p

I have it :cool: but cant play it till Thursday because my PS3 is at my dads house :-/

How could you possibly imply 5 years is a short time by using the term "only" when it's around 50% of your life time so far?

Years go fast. Life goes fast. Think about it.:mad:

The game shop was very busy today when i went to get a new game. I wonder why.:p

How could you possibly imply 5 years is a short time by using the term "only" when it's around 50% of your life time so far?

aaaah... but what if he was... 1 WEEK OLD?

Years go fast. Life goes fast.
No it doesn't. People just tend to think that because they have terrible memory and can only remember a very small fraction of their life.

Moreso, it's not the actual age difference that counts, it's the level of maturity.
Anyway, I don't really think the age rating on videogames are fair. For something like porn, yes, you're much better off keeping it far away from people underage. But for something like the theme in GTA, I'd say 12 would be a more suitable age limit.

Moreso, it's not the actual age difference that counts, it's the level of maturity.
Anyway, I don't really think the age rating on videogames are fair. For something like porn, yes, you're much better off keeping it far away from people underage. But for something like the theme in GTA, I'd say 12 would be a more suitable age limit.

Care to elaborate, or are you just blinkered?

Care to elaborate, or are you just blinkered?
If you're talking about having 12 as a suitable limit for GTA, it's because they're mature enough then to understand the concepts of thiefery and prostitution and violence, and all those other themes, and understand why it's not a good idea to do them yourself in real life.
If you're talking about not doing the same for porn, well... think of WormGod.

Your argument fails terribly Plasma. There's more of a case for porn being for all audiences than brutal violence, violence is bad regardless of whom against and where, sex simply isn't. Doesn't matter though, there's no such a thing as age limit enforcement, and eventually there'll be no age limit, we see nudity more and more often at audience schedules and even tits on advertisements.

If you're talking about having 12 as a suitable limit for GTA, it's because they're mature enough then to understand the concepts of thiefery and prostitution and violence, and all those other themes, and understand why it's not a good idea to do them yourself in real life.
lolstupid
If you're talking about not doing the same for porn, well... think of WormGod.
Im not sure what you just said... but Ill guess... lolstupid

Well, violent games don't always cause kids to be violent. Its the way that you like them that counts.

I mean, if your addicted to it and you play it all the time, then most likely you'll be violent when you are older.

I'm not violent tho. I hate violence in real life, and i don't plan on using it.:p

I mean, if your addicted to it and you play it all the time, then most likely you'll be violent when you are older.



no, NO, NO. "Most likely" is the worst term you could have chosen only behind "always". It happens, yes, I'd say around 1 in a million kids might become somewhat violent because they play violent games often, and even then they probably have some of disorder or get their violence instincts from other sources such as parents, genes or friends.

As long as kids know that the stuff happening inside that box with images doesn't have to be real, they are safe.

As long as kids know that the stuff happening inside that box with images doesn't have to be real, they are safe.

They wouldn't make a very good engineer though :P

Your argument fails terribly Plasma. There's more of a case for porn being for all audiences than brutal violence, violence is bad regardless of whom against and where, sex simply isn't.
Yes, my opinion there hinged around how I think sex isn't generally a good thing, at all (no, don't ask me to explain why, it'd take too long). And while watching violence doesn't encourage violence to anyone over the age of, say, 7, the same isn't true for sex.

Yes, my opinion there hinged around how I think sex isn't generally a good thing, at all (no, don't ask me to explain why, it'd take too long). And while watching violence doesn't encourage violence to anyone over the age of, say, 7, the same isn't true for sex.

Doesn't matter, your opinion is wrong. Sex isn't proven to be generally bad, so that's that and that's were it ends. Obviosuly, I'm talking about normal sex, not rapes or any other sick intercourses.
Not to mention violence isn't generally bad but bad always, therefore your original point is also wrong. There's really no room for debate here, the same way there wouldn't be if your opinion on condoms was that they're bad (which I assume you also think).
And yes, it's easier to encourage sex than to encourage violence, the same way it's easier to encourage a kid to eat food than to starve to death.

Anyway, I don't really think the age rating on videogames are fair. For something like porn, yes, you're much better off keeping it far away from people underage. But for something like the theme in GTA, I'd say 12 would be a more suitable age limit.
have you seen gta iv yet? i would agree with you if we were talking about gta iii, vice, or even sa. but gta iv is not for 12 year olds.

the age could probably be bumped down to 15-16, but not 12.

Doesn't matter, your opinion is wrong. Sex isn't proven to be generally bad, so that's that and that's were it ends.
It's a human interactivity matter, things like that are very hard to prove with science.

Not to mention violence isn't generally bad but bad always, therefore your original point is also wrong.
I believe my origional point was how 12-year-olds are mature to know that violence is bad and not a good idea.
(That's aside from that violence isn't bad always. Take national revolutions, for example.)

the same way there wouldn't be if your opinion on condoms was that they're bad (which I assume you also think).
I don't think they're bad, as long as they're not over-advertised. And I'm a distinct Atheist, if that clears things up a little.

have you seen gta iv yet? i would agree with you if we were talking about gta iii, vice, or even sa. but gta iv is not for 12 year olds.
Right, no. I've played all the previous GTA games, but not GTA4. I was assuming it would've been on par with San Andreas.

Doesn't matter, your opinion is wrong. Sex isn't proven to be generally bad, so that's that and that's were it ends.No link at all to the divorce rate then?

GTA4 = Phenomenal. :eek: Best one yet. And i'd even go as far as saying possibly one of the finest games i've ever played. And i've only just scratched the surface!

Right, no. I've played all the previous GTA games, but not GTA4. I was assuming it would've been on par with San Andreas.
take a look at ign's video review.

No link at all to the divorce rate then?

No, I don't have a link that shows the divorce rate based on sexual relationships, if you do, please share.

It's a human interactivity matter, things like that are very hard to prove with science.


Having a theory that can't be proven doesn't make it less wrong.

Come on, i'm only 5 years under the age limit.... I really don't know how I'm supposed to respond to this.

Maybe with some sort of quip about Stalin.

Look, I expect most people would agree with the statement that children should not be playing violent games *AND* that they should not be playing sexual games.

Whether one or t'other is "worse" is a completely personal opinion. No-one is saying that violent games are ok for younger people, and hopefully no-one here is saying that gratuitous sexual content and/or nudity is appropriate for younger people either.

Barring unfortunate accidents or disease, everyone will turn 18 (or 21) at some point, so it's just a matter of waiting. Hopefully people have some patience rather than trying to trick parents into buying adult games for them when it is innapropriate.

Look, I expect most people would agree with the statement that children should not be playing violent games *AND* that they should not be playing sexual games.

Whether one or t'other is "worse" is a completely personal opinion. No-one is saying that violent games are ok for younger people, and hopefully no-one here is saying that gratuitous sexual content and/or nudity is appropriate for younger people either.

Barring unfortunate accidents or disease, everyone will turn 18 (or 21) at some point, so it's just a matter of waiting. Hopefully people have some patience rather than trying to trick parents into buying adult games for them when it is innapropriate.

Yeah, but almost every game you look at is a violent video game. Worms is one. You shoot each other with bazookas, blow up each other with bombs, and then Ratchet and Clank where you shoot enemies and stuff and they blow apart.

Violence is punching, shooting, and kicking. Even hitting someone with a balloon is violence.

Also, i strongly disagree with the statement: A parent who lets their children play violent video games doesn't care about their child. And can you prove that, by any chance? my parents let me play violent video games, but i have limited times on GTA, so it goes to show that they DO care, otherwise they would let me play it all the time. I have limited times playing Violent Games, i'm not allowed to play them all the time. I'd say that if someone plays it all the time, then they will be violent when they are older. And they may shoot someone dead with a gun, if they were super addicted to it.

... I really don't know how I'm supposed to respond to this.

And i really don't know why we're having this arguement. Whats it going to do, keep all us 13 year olds and 12 year olds away from violent video games?:p

Yeah, but almost every game you look at is a violent video game. Worms is one. You shoot each other with bazookas, blow up each other with bombs, and then Ratchet and Clank where you shoot enemies and stuff and they blow apart.

Violence is punching, shooting, and kicking. Even hitting someone with a balloon is violence.

Also, i strongly disagree with the statement: A parent who lets their children play violent video games doesn't care about their child. And can you prove that, by any chance? my parents let me play violent video games, but i have limited times on GTA, so it goes to show that they DO care, otherwise they would let me play it all the time. I have limited times playing Violent Games, i'm not allowed to play them all the time. I'd say that if someone plays it all the time, then they will be violent when they are older. And they may shoot someone dead with a gun, if they were super addicted to it.





Your parents are probably just ignorant or trust you. But it's not their call. My parents might trust me my little 13 year old brother to drink alcohol but that doesn't mean he should.

Yeah, but almost every game you look at is a violent video game. Worms is one. You shoot each other with bazookas, blow up each other with bombs, and then Ratchet and Clank where you shoot enemies and stuff and they blow apart.

Well yes, that's true, but those games you mention are examples of extremely cartoony, unrealistic, and possibly most importantly, not directed at human violence. I would have no problem whatsoever with a 6 year-old playing worms or Ratchet and Clank and I wouldn't expect any kind of study looking at any correlation between playing these games and being violent in later life to not find any at all.

However, the idea of a 6 year-old playing a game like GTA or Manhunt is most definitely a controversial issue in the current games industry, and it is exactly this which is what age ratings on games were designed to prevent. Whether the blanket rating of 18 for "Adult" games is fair is certainly something that can be discussed, but I severely doubt it will ever change, or at least not any time in the near future, but ultimately it's going to be down to the parents to monitor what games their children are playing so there's not really that much the games industry can do other than keep reinforcing the message that the age restrictions are there for a reason and hope that parents can make a well-informed and sensible decision.

the idea of a 6 year-old playing a game like GTA

My 6 year old cousin has all the GTA games released so far. He got GTA IV today.

And all he does, is sit in front of his TV and plays GTA. Mad or what?

I mean playing violent video games when your 13 isn't too bad, but 6? thats taking violent games way too far.

EDIT: Okay, maybe playing violent games at 13 is bad too.:(

Violence is punching, shooting, and kicking. Even hitting someone with a balloon is violence.

Even seeing the hunter carry his shotgun around and shooting at Bugs Bunny is violence.

...I'm not really interested in cartoons on the Cartoon Network channel.

Even seeing the hunter carry his shotgun around and shooting at Bugs Bunny is violence.

...I'm not really interested in cartoons on the Cartoon Network channel.

I'm not either.

Even Tom and Jerry is violence.

Anyway...

I've just heard an hour ago that unfortunately one person was stabbed in a que and another beaten up at midnight when GTA IV came out.

These are just small examples of people taking violent video games too far.

These are just small examples of people taking violent video games too far.

No, this an example of people being crazy. Football fans get beaten up when they travel to away games. Does this mean football promotes violence? No, it doesn't.

Having a theory that can't be proven doesn't make it less wrong.
erm... i don't think you understand the concept of a theory.

theory is a) based on observations and b) supported by experimental evidence. it does not need to be, and generally cannot be proven. however, without evidence, it is not a theory. what you have is a weak hypothesis at best.

erm... i don't think you understand the concept of a theory.

theory is a) based on observations and b) supported by experimental evidence. it does not need to be, and generally cannot be proven. however, without evidence, it is not a theory. what you have is a weak hypothesis at best.
That is the definition in regard to science. In general usage, a theory doesn't require distinct proof.

I've just heard an hour ago that unfortunately one person was stabbed in a que and another beaten up at midnight when GTA IV came out.

These are just small examples of people taking violent video games too far.
No, those are just small examples of people taking violence too far. There's hardly a correlation between waiting in line to buy a violent videogame and violent videogames causing violence.

Having a theory that can't be proven doesn't make it less wrong.
But it hasn't been proven otherwise either, distinctly making it a grey area.

But it hasn't been proven otherwise either, distinctly making it a grey area.

I don't think so. Your claim was that sex was generally bad, it doesn't need to be proof that sex is generally good in order for your statement to be inaccurate.
You can have the opinion that sex is generally bad, but sex is generally mutual consent and those people generally enjoy it, not to mention it allows us to survive as a community. Basically what you're saying is that riding a roallcoaster is generally bad, because there's no scientific proof that it's good for you, and since there's no proof that it's bad for you it's suddenly a grey area? Sorry, I don't buy your supposed "opinion".

No, those are just small examples of people taking violence too far. There's hardly a correlation between waiting in line to buy a violent videogame and violent videogames causing violence.

Yeah, but why do you think that happened? because people cannot wait to get the game. That is an example of someone been wayyyy to addictive too.

EDIT: Just looked on gamespot. Here's the review (http://uk.gamespot.com/ps3/action/grandtheftauto4/review.html?tag=topslot;title;1&om_act=convert&om_clk=topslot).

They gave it a perfect 10!:eek:

Yeah, but why do you think that happened? because people cannot wait to get the game.
Right, yes, you have a point. I say that we ban anything that people want but can't get right the second they want it. Therefore, nobody has a motivation to attack other people to get what they want.
:rolleyes:

I don't think so. Your claim was that sex was generally bad, it doesn't need to be proof that sex is generally good in order for your statement to be inaccurate.
You can have the opinion that sex is generally bad, but sex is generally mutual consent and those people generally enjoy it, not to mention it allows us to survive as a community. Basically what you're saying is that riding a roallcoaster is generally bad, because there's no scientific proof that it's good for you, and since there's no proof that it's bad for you it's suddenly a grey area? Sorry, I don't buy your supposed "opinion".
Erm, I was referring to that it hasn't been proven whether it has a positive or negative effect on human interaction. The part about 'does it make you feel good' is less debatable.

Meh, I have time.
First of all, you'd need to know my opinions on relationships. Having a significant other is important, as far as I think anyway, because it's human nature to feel good when talking to another person they care about, because they don't judge you or hate you, because 'two minds are better than one', because they're a person you can trust with all your deep thoughts and secrets, and because they're a person that won't abandon you. Or, at least, they're supposed to be those things, otherwise you're in a bad relationship.
Now the thing about sex is that it isn't differentiated from a relationship as described above. This wouldn't be such a bad thing, having just one partner prevents the spread of STDs and pregnancies can be dealt with better with the partner as the father. But one thing: see where I said "you're in a bad relationship" if you and your Significant Other aren't those things listed? Yes, well because sex is seen as a major part of a relationship too, what should be classed as a bad relationship is often considered still good, as long as the sex is good. And while lots of sex is good short-term, over the long-term the lack of what I described as elements of a good relationship are a terrible loss, and the relationship can degenerate horribly!
The other point is that, again, sex is seen as part of a relationship. But unlike other aspects of a relationship, it is both an addiction and a fascination. Either because one partner is away for a period of time, or because one partner is getting tired of the repetition of having sex with the same person only, or some other reason, one of the partners may have sex with another person. This is seen as a forefeit of the relationship regardless of how good it may have been going. Thus an ideal and healthy relationship may come to an abrupt end where it shouldn't have.
And hence why I don't see sex as generally a good thing.

EDIT: Just looked on gamespot. Here's the review (http://uk.gamespot.com/ps3/action/grandtheftauto4/review.html?tag=topslot;title;1&om_act=convert&om_clk=topslot).

They gave it a perfect 10!:eek:

Don't you just love hyperbole? I love hyperbole.

They gave it a perfect 10!:eek:

I find it stupid when reviewers do this.
No game can be perfect (Apart from The Secret of Monkey Island)

No game can be perfect
The Secret of Monkey Island.

The Secret of Monkey god-damned Island.

Single greatest game of all-time.

Meh, I have time.
First of all, you'd need to know my opinions on relationships. Having a significant other is important, as far as I think anyway, because it's human nature to feel good when talking to another person they care about, because they don't judge you or hate you, because 'two minds are better than one', because they're a person you can trust with all your deep thoughts and secrets, and because they're a person that won't abandon you. Or, at least, they're supposed to be those things, otherwise you're in a bad relationship.
Now the thing about sex is that it isn't differentiated from a relationship as described above. This wouldn't be such a bad thing, having just one partner prevents the spread of STDs and pregnancies can be dealt with better with the partner as the father. But one thing: see where I said "you're in a bad relationship" if you and your Significant Other aren't those things listed? Yes, well because sex is seen as a major part of a relationship too, what should be classed as a bad relationship is often considered still good, as long as the sex is good. And while lots of sex is good short-term, over the long-term the lack of what I described as elements of a good relationship are a terrible loss, and the relationship can degenerate horribly!
The other point is that, again, sex is seen as part of a relationship. But unlike other aspects of a relationship, it is both an addiction and a fascination. Either because one partner is away for a period of time, or because one partner is getting tired of the repetition of having sex with the same person only, or some other reason, one of the partners may have sex with another person. This is seen as a forefeit of the relationship regardless of how good it may have been going. Thus an ideal and healthy relationship may come to an abrupt end where it shouldn't have.
And hence why I don't see sex as generally a good thing.

Change sex with "eating food" and see how that looks, I mean, your partner might want to eat all day long but you might not want him to, and then the relation ends, and suddenly food is bad?. Seriously though, sex is only that important in a relationship when one or both of the people in it feel like they need it, that's only their problem. Basically, you wouldn't say having babies is bad, yet it breaks many relationships. It's not the problem of the act itself, but of the two people in a relationship.
It all sounds to me like you aren't having sex with your partner for whatever reason and are trying to justify yourself in your own mind.

About your last point, no, if one person in said relationship wants to have sex and the other one doesn't there's no such a thing as a healthy and ideal relationship as one of the couple is not meeting the other's expectations or demands, therefore is nothing close to ideal.

The Secret of Monkey Island.

The Secret of Monkey god-damned Island.

Single greatest game of all-time.

Ok.
Happy now? :p

I find it stupid when reviewers do this.
No game can be perfect, even GTA.
Reviewers that rate games without using a decimal place can give games a rating of 10 where it would normally have a rating of 9.5 or above. But for sites like Gamespot, it would require a game to have a rating of 9.95 or above.
So it needs to be pointed out, Gamespot is not a good site for game reviews.

Reviewers that rate games without using a decimal place can give games a rating of 10 where it would normally have a rating of 9.5 or above. But for sites like Gamespot, it would require a game to have a rating of 9.95 or above.
So it needs to be pointed out, Gamespot is not a good site for game reviews.

Yeah, i was shocked. Also, i think thats the first 10 that gamespot has given.

EDIT: Just found the ign review... here's the review (http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/articles/869/869381p1.html)

Another 10.... Shocking.

Reviewers that rate games without using a decimal place can give games a rating of 10 where it would normally have a rating of 9.5 or above. But for sites like Gamespot, it would require a game to have a rating of 9.95 or above.
So it needs to be pointed out, Gamespot is not a good site for game reviews.
True. But that's why reviewers should harness the mighty power that is the decimal place.

Edit: I'm pretty sure IGN use DP and they still gave it a 10

Change sex with "eating food" and see how that looks.
"Eating food is seen as part of a relationship."
What?

Seriously though, sex is only that important in a relationship when one or both of the people in it feel like they need it, that's only their problem.
Like I said, "an addiction and a fascination". The more someone does it, the more they feel that they need it.

Basically, you wouldn't say having babies is bad, yet it breaks many relationships.
I'd say having babies is bad in some cases, such as when the mother is very emotionally unstable with no serious partner, or cases like that. But a secure family having babies won't break their relationship just like that.

It all sounds to me like you aren't having sex with your partner for whatever reason and are trying to justify yourself in your own mind.
I'm not, because I don't want to, for the reasons I just explained.

About your last point, no, if one person in said relationship wants to have sex and the other one doesn't there's no such a thing as a healthy and ideal relationship as one of the couple is not meeting the other's expectations or demands, therefore is nothing close to ideal.
One partner really wanting sex and the other partner wanting the opposite is what I'd call a bad relationship that shouldn't, and hardly will, start.

"Eating food is seen as part of a relationship."
What?

Love is part of a relationship, and sometimes love ends, and you start loving someone else, and then your relationship ends. Therefore love is generally bad. See? Your argument really doesn't make any sense.




Like I said, "an addiction and a fascination". The more someone does it, the more they feel that they need it.

Blame god, it's in our instincts.




One partner really wanting sex and the other partner wanting the opposite is what I'd call a bad relationship that shouldn't, and hardly will, start.

It will, many people start relationships being virgins, and it might turn out one of the partners like it and the other doesn't, or one likes it more than the other, hell, this happens in most relationships, but if it gets to the point were it breaks the relationship, then the people are the ones to blame, really. You might want to argue all day that sex shouldn't be considered part of a relationship, and it might be a prejudice of hetero man-woman relationships that people expect you to have sex with your girlfriend, but you're not going to blame people for having this prejudice, because it's in our genes, we partner with women because if we didn't, there'd be no 'we'.

Also, I'm not debating your reasons for having not sex, I'm not the one to judge your personal life, I'm only debating the use of 'generally' in the phrase 'sex is generally bad'.

Blame god, it's in our instincts.
"A wizard did it."

Love is part of a relationship, and sometimes love ends, and you start loving someone else, and then your relationship ends. Therefore love is generally bad. See? Your argument really doesn't make any sense.
The big difference is that a relationship is supposed to be based around love, not sex. If it ends because of a problem involving love, that's normal. If it ends because of a problem involving sex, then it gets complicated.

Blame god, it's in our instincts.
Yeah, "our instincts" in this case comes as part of the whole 'sex is generally bad' argument.

It will, many people start relationships being virgins, and it might turn out one of the partners like it and the other doesn't, or one likes it more than the other, hell, this happens in most relationships, but if it gets to the point were it breaks the relationship, then the people are the ones to blame, really.
Err, yes.
But I can't see what any of that that has to do with my argument though.

Actually, it sort of supports it: because the moment that each partners want and don't want to do it vary greatly, it can lead to break-ups like you said. But unlike someone who does have sex, someone who doesn't have sex doesn't have moments when they do want sex. Two partners who don't want sex don't have the problem as two that do.
Of course, like you said

Also, I'm not debating your reasons for having sex, I don't care, I'm only debating the use of 'generally' in the phrase 'sex is generally bad'.
So am I. Well, I am debating 'generally bad for people in general', if that helps clears things up a little. People who're particularly smart, disciplined and cautious, or people who have enough control over their mind to completely nullify the side effects, would probably be exempt from this.

The big difference is that a relationship is supposed to be based around love, not sex. If it ends because of a problem involving love, that's normal. If it ends because of a problem involving sex, then it gets complicated.


Yeah, "our instincts" in this case comes as part of the whole 'sex is generally bad' argument.


Err, yes.
But I can't see what any of that that has to do with my argument though.

Actually, it sort of supports it: because the moment that each partners want and don't want to do it vary greatly, it can lead to break-ups like you said. But unlike someone who does have sex, someone who doesn't have sex doesn't have moments when they do want sex. Two partners who don't want sex don't have the problem as two that do.
Of course, like you said


So am I. Well, I am debating 'generally bad for people in general', if that helps clears things up a little. People who're particularly smart, disciplined and cautious, or people who have enough control over their mind to completely nullify the side effects, would probably be exempt from this.

We can sit here theorizing all day, but at the end of the day, sex helps bonds and in many cases, is the begin of relationships. I just don't buy it's generally bad, the majority of people in this world would certainly disagree with you, so generally speaking, you're wrong.

Meh, I have time.Do ya? Do ya REALLY pa? Oh GOODIE we're so happy your taking some of your precious time to give us your opinion, what with it being SO much more important than ours, and all :D
On the other, its almost certainly hilariously wrong, so go ahead.
First of all, you'd need to know my opinions on relationships. Having a significant other is important, as far as I think anyway, because it's human nature to feel good when talking to another person they care about, because they don't judge you or hate you, because 'two minds are better than one', because they're a person you can trust with all your deep thoughts and secrets, and because they're a person that won't abandon you. Or, at least, they're supposed to be those things, otherwise you're in a bad relationship.
So far so good, dont dissapoint me now...
Now the thing about sex is that it isn't differentiated from a relationship as described above. This wouldn't be such a bad thing, having just one partner prevents the spread of STDs and pregnancies can be dealt with better with the partner as the father.
okaaaay... technically your not wrong yet but... getting there
But one thing: see where I said "you're in a bad relationship" if you and your Significant Other aren't those things listed? Yes, well because sex is seen as a major part of a relationship too, what should be classed as a bad relationship is often considered still good, as long as the sex is good. And while lots of sex is good short-term, over the long-term the lack of what I described as elements of a good relationship are a terrible loss, and the relationship can degenerate horribly!
Well that sucks, you just completely misunderstand sex! and relationships! This was supposed to be entertaining :mad:
The other point is that, again, sex is seen as part of a relationship. But unlike other aspects of a relationship, it is both an addiction and a fascination. Either because one partner is away for a period of time, or because one partner is getting tired of the repetition of having sex with the same person only, or some other reason, one of the partners may have sex with another person. This is seen as a forefeit of the relationship regardless of how good it may have been going. Thus an ideal and healthy relationship may come to an abrupt end where it shouldn't have.
Thats better! And by better I mean stupid, obviously.
If sex is seen as an important part of the relationship, then people in a 'good' relationship wont cheat/get bored/whatever. If its not important, it wont end a good relationship.
Also calling it an 'addiction' is putting it a bit strongly, and 'fascination' is missing the point entirely. People like sex because its fun, simple as that. Only pretentious psychology students would want to label it otherwise.
And hence why I don't see sex as generally a good thing.
lolvirgin

Seriously, you treat sex far too seriously, as if its some huge issue which is somehow fundamentally different to going out for dinner. and its not. Thats not your fault you think that way, society teaches you to think weirdly about sex because, until fairly recently, sex HAS been a weird thing - behind closed doors and all tied up with religion as it was. Now though sex is normal - just like going out for dinner - it has nothing to do with 'love' and relationships any more than any other single action does. Its just a thing. Take it or leave it, just dont get obsessed with it unless you understand it.

Personally I believe quite the opposite to you - namely that sex is a good thing, in fact brilliant. And thats because I generally use a utilitarian moral compass, which treats sex far more normally.


Much of this post is 'poorly worded' at best, so feel free to pick bits out for explanation. and at least wiki utilitarianism before you ask what it is you cretins :)

Here are some of the places you went wrong:

because they're a person you can trust with all your deep thoughts and secrets, and because they're a person that won't abandon you.

sex is seen as part of a relationship. But unlike other aspects of a relationship, it is both an addiction and a fascination

I don't see sex as generally a good thing.

I'd say having babies is bad in some cases, such as when the mother is very emotionally unstable with no serious partner, or cases like that. But a secure family having babies won't break their relationship just like that.

I'm not, because I don't want to, for the reasons I just explained.

The big difference is that a relationship is supposed to be based around love

What is love?
Baby don't hurt me..

On a serious note though, you sound like you might be gay?

Actually, I think you failed right back at the start,
Anyway, I don't really think the age rating on videogames are fair. For something like porn, yes, you're much better off keeping it far away from people underage. But for something like the theme in GTA, I'd say 12 would be a more suitable age limit.

If you're talking about having 12 as a suitable limit for GTA, it's because they're mature enough then to understand the concepts of thiefery and prostitution and violence, and all those other themes, and understand why it's not a good idea to do them yourself in real life.


So 12 year-olds will repeatedly screw and murder whores on a video game and that's all fine, but watching two adults participate in a legal activity is out of the question?

I think they should be left at 18.

Different things affect different people differently. Shock. So while some 12 year-olds might play violent video games responsibly and it's just an outlet for some anger which prevents them from flipping out in the real world, others might play addictively and commit crimes.
It's probably worth mentioning the same goes for 18 year-olds, but the point of the age limit is that you are less impressionable at that age, and have a greater understanding of the consequenses.

Here are some of the places you went wrong:



What is love?
Baby don't hurt me..

On a serious note though, you sound like you might be gay?

Actually, I think you failed right back at the start,


So 12 year-olds will repeatedly screw and murder whores on a video game and that's all fine, but watching two adults participate in a legal activity is out of the question?

I think they should be left at 18.

Different things affect different people differently. Shock. So while some 12 year-olds might play violent video games responsibly and it's just an outlet for some anger which prevents them from flipping out in the real world, others might play addictively and commit crimes.
It's probably worth mentioning the same goes for 18 year-olds, but the point of the age limit is that you are less impressionable at that age, and have a greater understanding of the consequenses.
This is what I would have said if I'd got here before the rest of the thread developed

Tbh I think all rating systems for games arn't really relevant to this day and age. It really depends on the person playing or, perhaps more importantly their parents. We've all heard the Manhunt story and that person clearly had something wrong with him. An average sane 14 year old should be allowed to play GTA in my opinion. I played the original GTA in 1998 when I was waaaaay below the legal age and I've grown up with the series. I'm still not legally allowed to play it for another year...

So 12 year-olds will repeatedly screw and murder whores on a video game and that's all fine, but watching two adults participate in a legal activity is out of the question?
A person might think it kind to release the fish everytime they go fishing, but it can still be said they're just torturing fish for fun.
-Yes. But not when it's that brutally phrased.

If sex is seen as an important part of the relationship, then people in a 'good' relationship wont cheat/get bored/whatever. If its not important, it wont end a good relationship.
I would've liked to think so, but I just don't trust most people to have enough willpower and sense.

Seriously, you treat sex far too seriously, as if its some huge issue which is somehow fundamentally different to going out for dinner. and its not. Thats not your fault you think that way, society teaches you to think weirdly about sex because, until fairly recently, sex HAS been a weird thing - behind closed doors and all tied up with religion as it was. Now though sex is normal - just like going out for dinner - it has nothing to do with 'love' and relationships any more than any other single action does.
Going out to dinner with someone else will very rarely cause your partner to dump you on the spot. It's not the same.
For as long as most people treat it as a big thing, that's the attitude I have to take on the matter.

Looks like todays lesson is on sex!:p

I played GTA IV today with my cousin. And because its so fantastic and amazing, i just can't comprehend how shockingly fantastic this game is.... it could take more than 8000 words to describe the brilliance of this game... fallen from the heavens....

Lemme just say one thing- God created this game.;)

Even hitting someone with a balloon is violence.

No. It's political satire: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpc5vgi9zbM

I played GTA IV today with my cousin.
Good job, kid http://forum.team17.co.uk/images/icons/icon14.gif

Lemme just say one thing- God created this game.;)

Wrong! God created man, and gave man free will. Man made the game, not him directly.

Wrong! God created man, and gave man free will. Man made the game, not him directly.
That, Robowurmz, is what we call "a joke".

Wrong! God created man, and gave man free will. Man made the game, not him directly.

Ahhhhh, but if God hadn't created man, we wouldn't have this game now, would we?:p

Good job, kid

What your really trying to get across with that message is that i am too young for the game, meh.:mad:

What your really trying to get across with that message is that i am too young for the game, meh.:mad:
Pretty much, yeah. You're, what, 11? 12? I didn't play GTA until I was a little older than that -14 or 15, I think. Now it's a tad hypocritical of me as my parents got me the home version of Mortal Kombat when I was a lot younger (like, say, 8 years old), but even still that's not something I would do with kids of my own. Besides which, if nothing else, the violence in GTA4 is a lot gorier than the first MK ever was.

No, I can't say I'm particularly impressed with the idea of you playing GTA4 at your age.

Pretty much, yeah. You're, what, 11? 12? I didn't play GTA until I was a little older than that
He's 13, IIRC.

13? Oh well that's alright, then :rolleyes:

Pretty much, yeah. You're, what, 11? 12? I didn't play GTA until I was a little older than that -14 or 15, I think. Now it's a tad hypocritical of me as my parents got me the home version of Mortal Kombat when I was a lot younger (like, say, 8 years old), but even still that's not something I would do with kids of my own. Besides which, if nothing else, the violence in GTA4 is a lot gorier than the first MK ever was.

No, I can't say I'm particularly impressed with the idea of you playing GTA4 at your age.

I'm 13.

And blood and gore doesn't bother me, nor does violence.

You may say that parents who let their kids play games at that age are stupid, but i'm against that.

That could be because the young ones are missing out on brilliant games. Including me.

The Game age ratings aren't really working well that much, in my opinion. There not stopping kids getting games. A kid can get their hands on a violent video game in a flash. Just get their parents to buy the game for them.

13? Oh well that's alright, then

No its not, but i'm not going to miss out on brilliant games like GTA.:mad:

You may say that parents who let their kids play games at that age are stupid, but i'm agains that.

I'm not saying "parents who let their kids play games at that age are stupid". I do think there's a concern with regards to parents who let their kids play M-rated games. Ultimately I think it's up to the parents to decide whether their child, regardless of age, is mature enough to play these games. My parents themselves were gamers and I trust that they wouldn't have let me play Mortal Kombat if they didn't think I was "ready" for it, especially considering that my Dad was the manager of a Lazer Quest with an arcade at the time, and he'd not only seen the game played on the arcade floor but had actually played it himself.

Personally, given your posts here and on Yauhui's forum, I can't say you seem particularly mature enough for GTA4. But then I don't really know you, do I?

Personally, given your posts here and on Yauhui's forum, I can't say you seem particularly mature enough for GTA4. But then I don't really know you, do I?

......

Well i haven't stabbed someone to death yet, so i'd say i'm mature enough.:p

Not everyone who plays GTA will grow up to be violent. Why are people thinking this? thats what confuses me.

You're rather missing the point, Shadowmoon.

You're rather missing the point, Shadowmoon.

Yeah, but of course, i think your forgetting that this is the first time i have been on a forum.

Sheeesh. Do you expect every person that comes on this forum, who its also his/her first time on the forum to be mature?

This arguement about me or yauhui playing violent video games is pointless, i do believe that it depends how much you play it that will affect you growing up, and i've been playing GTA since 2002, i think, i Played GTA on playstation 1 first and loved it.

Yeah, i played GTA firstly when i was 7. So what?

It depends how you take the violence. I don't look at the violence and think: Hey! i'm gonna try and shoot someone in the head or kick them to death or shoot them!

Besides, why should we miss out on games like that? it may have a lot of blood or gore, but it just depends how you take the violence.

Not everyone who plays GTA will grow up to be violent.

GTA is riddled with so much more than just violence. It's not the violence that gives the game an 18 certificate IMO but obviously it helps...

GTA is riddled with so much more than just violence. It's not the violence that gives the game an 18 certificate IMO but obviously it helps...

Well it doesn't seem to be affecting kids much... some parents look at the 18+ certificate and think: no way am i letting my kid play this game, but not enough of them.

Which is great, because then we get to play great games! i'm fed up of playing childish games like crash bandicoot and spyro. In fact, in my school, everyone who doesn't play a violent video game and plays childish games is branded a 'baby'

I don't think that, but 80% of kids in my year at my school play those games.

You're rather missing the point, Shadowmoon.

Yeah. The point is you don't think i'm mature. Yay! one point to me.

i'm fed up of playing childish games like crash bandicoot and spyro. In fact, in my school, everyone who doesn't play a violent video game and plays childish games is branded a 'baby'

Crash Bandicoot is an amazing game I think you'll find.

Parents do not seem to actually look into what it is that their children are actually playing. Most parents will probably look at GTA IV and think 'oh it's just a bit violent' but they are never really conscious of the sexual content (which is impossible to ignore in this game i've heard) and the level of bad language which i know plagued San Andreas like, well a particularly bad plague...

Crash Bandicoot is an amazing game I think you'll find.

Old Games= Fantastic

New Games= A let down

It used to be amazing, but now its just losing its touch.

Parents do not seem to actually look into what it is that their children are actually playing. Most parents will probably look at GTA IV and think 'oh it's just a bit violent' but they are never really conscious of the sexual content (which is impossible to ignore in this game i've heard) and the level of bad language which i know plagued San Andreas like, well a particularly bad plague....

I'm allowed to play violent games like GTA, because i agreed that if i ever do something like in that game, i'm banned for good.

They don't seem to look into what it is that their children are doing, but my parents have watched me play the game, and they've let me play it, even though its not suited for our age group.

Well thats what most people seem to think, but maybe not the children who are playing violent games....

Yes, the point is that you're not mature enough to play GTA4, according to Squirminator.
Not that I know how Squirminator was able to figure out the required amount of maturity needed, but hey, I'm sure he has his ways.

Old Games= Fantastic

New Games= A let down

It used to be amazing, but now its just losing its touch.

I was talking about the game 'Crash Bandicoot' not the series

I'm allowed to play violent games like GTA, because i agreed that if i ever do something like in that game, i'm banned for good.

So if you have sex with a hooker then brutally murder her to get your money back or go on a rampage down the motor-way in a tank all your parents will do is take away your copy of GTA?

Edit: and I'm not really debating if you are mature enough to play the game, that's not for me to say. I'm simply saying that if your parents knew the content of the game in it's entirety I don't think they'd let you play it.

So if you have sex with a hooker then brutally murder her to get your money back or go on a rampage down the motor-way in a tank all your parents will do is take away your copy of GTA?

.........

No, they would probably ground me for life.

This is the last thing i'm going to say about this. Kids will always be able to get their hands on violent video games, unless parents take action. Which i highly doubt will happen.

This arguement is pointless. This arguement is about Shadowmoon playing GTA IV with his cousin. Are you going to start this arguement when yauhui says he has played it?

I shouldn't play games at my age, but i do, and most kids i know do.

.........

No, they would probably ground me for life.
And you'd go into a correctional facility. Just so you know.
This is the last thing i'm going to say about this. Kids will always be able to get their hands on violent video games, unless parents take action. Which i highly doubt will happen.
Yeah, it's not like the games industry will take note and add some kind of parental lock-out on consoles or anythwell hey now wait a minute.

My personal opinion is that it's the parents' responsibility to take action to make sure they're kids are playing games that are inappropriate for them - not for their age group, but for them specifically. Any parent who isn't taking an active role in their children's lives is, to be honest, not doing their job properly. I wanted to learn to read so I could play The Secret of Monkey Island, and my parents helped me. Sometimes I wonder if they used the game as an incentive.
I shouldn't play games at my age, but i do, and most kids i know do.
Y'see, this is why no one likes you here - because you say stupid (silt - Ed.) like this. Kids can play games. They can play games all they want. All I'm saying is that kids shouldn't be playing games that are not appropriate for them.

GTA4 isn't aimed at your age group - many games these days aren't - but ultimately age is more or less just a number. We all grow and mature in different ways, as evidenced by the fact that I was playing Mortal Kombat before I hit a double-digit age number. In your case, I choose to assume you're not mature enough based on some of the actions you've taken against some of us here on this forum (and on other forums, of course, not to mention your attitude towards what you see as youth-hating adults). That said, I'm not qualified to talk about your case because I dislike you.

I'm also of the opinion that your opinion on the matter may well change as you get older. Mortal Kombat caused a huge furore when it was released (one that inevitable led to the creation of the ERSB in the States), and I was playing it and, y'know, not decapitating people or beating people up (although Street Fighter II, which came out the previous year, did become the "theme" of the play-fights I had with my friends) and so my opinion was "violent games do not make people violent because I'm not violent, so kids should be able to play whatever the (you're out of luck - Ed.) they want. That opinion changed over the years. I learnt from first-hand experience that some people are easily impressionable (the release of Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance inspired a High School "friend" of mine to buy a Samurai sword, and the last I heard of him he had a warrant out for his arrest for assault) but it's unfair to keep these forms of entertainment out of everybody's hands just because a handful of people are stupid enough to play Monkey See Monkey Do. Rating systems need to be properly enforced, stores need to make sure they're not selling games to minors, and parents need to know what their kids are playing and making sure they're not playing games that are inappropriate for them, not for their age group.

I don't really think I can say much more than that.

Edit: Yes I can. Why does no one give a (Dave Hitt - Ed.) when a violent film comes out on DVD, but they're all up in arms when there's hints about the possibility of implied violence in a videogame? It's all the same stuff. It's all just entertainment, and no one with an IQ equal to or greater than their (paint huffing - Ed.) shoe size gives a crap otherwise.

My personal opinion is that it's the parents' responsibility to take action to make sure they're[their] kids are playing games that are inappropriate for them - not for their age group, but for them specifically.
this is the first constructive, reasonable, and sane thing in this thread.

what anti-violent games crusaders (lets not mention names) should be doing is not trying to ban violent video games, but make sure that parents know how to prevent their kids from playing them. the tools are out there, but most parents don't know how to use them. informing parents on how to use the parental controls on their kids consoles would do a hell of a lot more good than trying (and failing) to ban a game.

post scriptum. you keep making that they're/their mistake. it even crawled into one of the jump leads as i recall. not trying to be mean, just pointing it out.

post scriptum. you keep making that they're/their mistake. it even crawled into one of the jump leads as i recall. not trying to be mean, just pointing it out.

When I'm writing - in scripts, on forums or otherwise - I'll usually write a sentence, then re-write it three or four times. My brain registers that I've put a "there/they're/their" in there/they're/their and forgets which one it is. Just that it's one of the three. So when I'm re-writing I'll acknowledge the word and go with the flow, but I'll forget to change it to the one I'm using in the sentence. I've not spotted any in Jump Leads, though - usually if a page goes up with a spelling/grammatical error people let me know pretty quickly and I change it.

I've not spotted any in Jump Leads, though - usually if a page goes up with a spelling/grammatical error people let me know pretty quickly and I change it.
it was certainly one of these 're missuses. i could have sworn that it was they're/their. and yeah, it got fixed pretty fast.

Could always resort to parental permission. As in, when someone goes out to buy a game, and they don't appear is if they're over 18, maybe they should have a parent visible with them, so it's like "Yes, I give my child permission to play this game." They didn't even ask me if I was over 18 when I went to buy God of War 2, or just recently, the Hitman movie.
But on the flip side, showing ID just to buy a video game or a movie would be pretty annoying I think.
I played the first GTA on PC when I was in Grade 6 (11 years old), but the thought of killing someone else never even crossed my mind.
I do agree with S2K, it's all on who you are, not your age.
Just because you play M 17+ rated video games doesn't mean you're mature. Mature I suppose would be being able to understand it correctly? I'm not entirely sure yet.

But on the flip side, showing ID just to buy a video game or a movie would be pretty annoying I think.
It's pretty annoying when I get carded at bars, or whenever I want to use my debit card, but it's a necessary evil.

I do agree with S2K, it's all on who you are, not your age.
Exactly. Some 21 year-olds are just as impressionable as some 8 year-olds.

Just got this game. It is amazing.
I'm sure I'm not telling you anything new. But it lived up to my expectations, which were pretty high.

Its a bit small (not just map size but stuff you can do as well)... Its like playing Vice City again, only everything is slightly better done.

Not that Im dissapointed, its still awesome :D

Im hoping the next will be San Andreas scale but at this quality. The quality is assured but they already wimped out on scale once...

I always thought the map on SA was too big. Some areas were just empty and boring. Realistic, just tiresome.

I always thought the map on SA was too big. Some areas were just empty and boring. Realistic, just tiresome.

Yes but they didnt just cut the empty bits out. In fact I most miss the giant mountain :(

The giant mountain was of course made of awesome. But that was about the only countryside section that a enjoying. I spose dirt-biking full speed over fields and hills was always fun. Especially when you end up on the motor-way without realising and get hit by a truck...

but still...

The giant mountain was of course made of awesome. But that was about the only countryside section that a enjoying. I spose dirt-biking full speed over fields and hills was always fun. Especially when you end up on the motor-way without realising and get hit by a truck...

but still...

That was exactly my point :p
But also the overall range of things you can do feels limited. For example I decided to try and cause as much destruction as possible for no reason whatsoever ("you're... dumping me?" D:) and soon found I'd run out of things to do at about the same time as I would in Vice City

I think the euphoria physics more than make up for that. :p

I think the euphoria physics more than make up for that. :p

Well I did (intend) to say it was still the best yet :p

According to a GTA4 review by a local newspaper, the cops are WAY too easy to evade. Just run out of the search parameter without getting caught or attracting attention, and you're not wanted anymore.

That's still better than it was before hand.

If you've only got one or two stars then yeah, it's a little easy to evade the cops. Anything higher than that and it takes some real effort, though.

Not that you'll be playing it of course, considering you're about nine or something.

Anyone else massively dissapointed by this now it isnt SHINYNEWGTA :( The whole time I play I can only think I'd rather play ANY of my other games...

This will actually be the first game I return before completing. Its just too dull, which is a shame, because its all so much slicker than previous installments that it should work :(

Anyone else massively dissapointed by this now it isnt SHINYNEWGTA :( The whole time I play I can only think I'd rather play ANY of my other games...

This will actually be the first game I return before completing. Its just too dull, which is a shame, because its all so much slicker than previous installments that it should work :(
Let me guess: the base gameplay hasn't changed enough from San Andreas, which you've already overplayed?

Anyone else massively dissapointed by this now it isnt SHINYNEWGTA :( The whole time I play I can only think I'd rather play ANY of my other games...

This will actually be the first game I return before completing. Its just too dull, which is a shame, because its all so much slicker than previous installments that it should work :(

It is true that there isn't as much to do as in San Andreas. But everything that is still there has been greatly improved on. I much prefer the wanted system because in previous titles the police seemingly always knew where you were and once you got to around three stars it was impossible to lose them or shake them off. The shooting also is much, much better than it was before. It has a certain element of skill unlike before. True you still tend to just lock onto targets and shoot but now you can pick off indevidual body parts unlike San Andreas which automatically aimed for the head if you were close to your target. The driving is also noticably different to the other games. I didn't like it at first but it has grown on me because again like everything else it takes a lot more skill as most of the car's handling is vastly differently to one another.

I haven't got far into the story line yet mainly because I get distracted incredibly easily and I'm still marveling at the physics engine. But so far I'm impressed. Niko is one of my favourite characters from the series (Tommy Vercetti being my all time favourite), I much prefer him to CJ and the other characters I've encountered have all been very memorable too. Also I'm a massive fan of Drunk Driving (in the game not in reality).

I personally don't miss planes all that much. I don't think they would be suited to Liberty City at all and I never really enjoyed the Sky-Diving aspect either. It's much more fun to launch him without a parachute from helicopters or the Empire State Building (I forget what it's called in the actual game) anyway.

Rate it, over 10.

Not that you'll be playing it of course, considering you're about nine or something.

13.

Let me guess: the base gameplay hasn't changed enough from San Andreas, which you've already overplayed?

Err... no... the story has just failed to hold my attention and most of the gameplay elements, though improved, also feel slightly repetitive and not as fun.

It just doesnt have the adrenaline rush of, say, Burnout

I much prefer rampaging through town in GTA4 than I did in GTA3 or Vice City, but because I haven't spent as much time with it I'm not so familiar with the layout of the city. The story is quite unengaging, though.

The story is quite unengaging, though.

"Message recieved from Dimitri"

Which one was that? Your Russian right? Russian and... evil?


I must admit the rampaging is better in this one, if only because of the way pedestrians bounce off the bonnet :p the car damage is better too: flat tyre... no tyre! :eek:

If you've only got one or two stars then yeah, it's a little easy to evade the cops. Anything higher than that and it takes some real effort, though.

Not that you'll be playing it of course, considering you're about nine or something.

Give me a good reason why he can't play it. Are you there to stop him? if his parents stop him no he can't play it, but your post basically sounds like: NAH YOU CAN'T PLAY IT I WON'T LET YOU

Give me a good reason why he can't play it. Are you there to stop him? if his parents stop him no he can't play it, but your post basically sounds like: NAH YOU CAN'T PLAY IT I WON'T LET YOU

Well I'm assuming that his parents are of sound mind enough to not let him play it, considering he (and you, incidentally) don't appear to be emotionally mature enough for it. If I had kids your age I wouldn't let them play GTA4.

Well I'm assuming that his parents are of sound mind enough to not let him play it, considering he (and you, incidentally) don't appear to be emotionally mature enough for it. If I had kids your age I wouldn't let them play GTA4.
Actually, I'm pretty sure a person with a truly sound mind would admit that they have no idea whatsoever on how emotionally mature a person needs to be for something like this.

But I think it can be generally agreed that young kids playing such violent videogames isn't strictly speaking a Good Thing.

Well I'm assuming that his parents are of sound mind enough to not let him play it, considering he (and you, incidentally) don't appear to be emotionally mature enough for it. If I had kids your age I wouldn't let them play GTA4.

In what way is yauhui immature?

Just a question.

No, i wouldn't scream and say OMG thats blood! OMG what are they doing? i'd just ignore it.

Unless you mean that we probably love blood and violence. I don't mind violence and i don't mind blood.

I don't know anyone - child or otherwise - who'd scream like that at a videogame. You do seem to be more or less missing the point, though.

But I think it can be generally agreed that young kids playing such violent videogames isn't strictly speaking a Good Thing.
It's generally agreed that ANYONE playing violent videogames isn't strictly speaking a Good Thing. Don't you ever listen to the media?

Moreso, if you think that your everyday man is of sound mind then I'd like to know what planet you're living on.

Moreso, if you think that your everyday man is of sound mind then I'd like to know what planet you're living on.
Planet Earth. Sure, a lot of people aren't exactly smart, but over 99% of the population aren't mass murderers*. So I think it's safe to say that your everyday man (or indeed woman) is of sound mind, or at least close enough that you can't tell the difference.

* Directly. Of other human beings**. In the world that is generally agreed to be reality.
** Oh bugger, I forgot wars.

I don't know anyone - child or otherwise - who'd scream like that at a videogame. You do seem to be more or less missing the point, though.

Thats what it sounds like your saying though.

So what do you mean by Mature? over-reacting and taking it too seriously when blood and guts and other stuff appear?

That's more or less the exact opposite of what I mean.

Planet Earth. Sure, a lot of people aren't exactly smart, but over 99% of the population aren't mass murderers*. So I think it's safe to say that your everyday man (or indeed woman) is of sound mind, or at least close enough that you can't tell the difference.

* Directly. Of other human beings**. In the world that is generally agreed to be reality.
** Oh bugger, I forgot wars.
You an me, sir, we have very different opinions on what the term "sound mind" should mean.

Planet Earth. Sure, a lot of people aren't exactly smart, but over 99% of the population aren't mass murderers*. So I think it's safe to say that your everyday man (or indeed woman) is of sound mind, or at least close enough that you can't tell the difference.

* Directly. Of other human beings**. In the world that is generally agreed to be reality.
** Oh bugger, I forgot wars.

Well londons running through a lot of stabbings lately.

That's more or less the exact opposite of what I mean.

Oh, so you mean that a lot of bad things happen in GTA 4 that we won't understand?

So basically your not saying we are immature, your saying we are naive?

Oh, so you mean that a lot of bad things happen in GTA 4 that we won't understand?

So basically your not saying we are immature, your saying we are naive?
Not really. Look at your previous post again:
"So what do you mean by Mature? over-reacting and taking it too seriously when blood and guts and other stuff appear?"
What you just described is the definition of being immature, not being mature, and that's what Squirminator is trying to point out.

You an me, sir, we have very different opinions on what the term "sound mind" should mean.Well, let's face it, "sound mind" can mean anything. I talk to myself frequently and at length. Does that mean I'm of unsound mind? I love cricket, how about that? I'm an atheist; does that make me mad? To different groups of people, all of these things make me insane. Poke around enough and be flexible enough with your definitions and you can find evidence to label anyone of unsound mind. It therefore strikes me that "sound mind" is a poorly-defined term.

Although I guess if you define it as "knows the difference between fiction and reality", then maybe you're getting somewhere... it makes sense from the point of view of re-enacting violence in computer games, and it can, with a little stretching, cover people who watch soap operas and get over-involved in the whole thing. Still a good long stretch to actually going out and committing violent crime.

But I think it can be generally agreed that young kids playing such violent videogames isn't strictly speaking a Good Thing.

You might as well say that kids shouldn't watch Bugs Bunny because the show contains violence, and they shouldn't play CounterStrike or Warcraft or Halo or Bioshock or whatever because the said games are violent.

ALSO: This is getting quite off-topic.

-------

To make the thread on-topic again:

The local newspapers highlight on the realisticness of bulletshots on cars and stuff. What's the difference between the shots in GTA4 and other games, say CS?

Aren't all of them just image overlays? :S

You might as well say that kids shouldn't watch Bugs Bunny because the show contains violence, and they shouldn't play CounterStrike or Warcraft or Halo or Bioshock or whatever because the said games are violent.

This game is much more violent than a Bugs Bunny cartoon my friend.

This game is much more violent than a Bugs Bunny cartoon my friend.

That reminds me: in the original red riding hood tale... well, the end is not as beautiful. The granma and the little girl get brutally eaten by the wolf, and there's nobody taking them out.

The moral was not to trust strangers, instead of the actual "I can trust anyone, since a lumberjack can take me out from a stomach"

At least they censored the original... Replacing it with filling the wolf with stones, and letting him drown in a well... SERIOUSLY, what kind of sadistic person imagines that? Dunno what parts are censored elsewhere, but that's the story I always heard when I was litttle, and if that's everywhere... well, GTA4 is not that bad.

The rest of the Grimm brothers tales have similar endings, but most modified, too, in case somebody didn't know, for any odd reason :p

I know what you mean. Humpty Dumpty is just four lines long, yet from what I can make of it the first two lines are about him committing suicide and the second two lines are about how he didn't survive.
Seriously, what kind of nursery rhyme is that?

And what's the moral of Jack & Jill?

Don't mess about with whores or you get your head caved in?

And don't forget hey diddle diddle, if you tried to jump over the moon you can certainly expect a horrific end!

And what's the moral of Jack & Jill?

Don't mess about with whores or you get you head caved in?

Ricky Gervais!

I'm back just to say that this is awesome. And I'm not so obsessed to have completed it.

...really.

:(

Ricky Gervais!
QUIET YOU!
b

I know what you mean. Humpty Dumpty is just four lines long, yet from what I can make of it the first two lines are about him committing suicide and the second two lines are about how he didn't survive.
Seriously, what kind of nursery rhyme is that?

If I remember rightly, Ring Around the Rosie was about the Black Plague.

If I remember rightly, Ring Around the Rosie was about the Black Plague.

There's a fair chance it isn't, though (http://www.snopes.com/language/literary/rosie.asp)

There's a fair chance it isn't, though (http://www.snopes.com/language/literary/rosie.asp)

I suppose that's all in how you interpret the song then!

If I remember rightly, Ring Around the Rosie was about the Black Plague.
I highly doubt that. Especially when you consider that it was only called "Ring Around the Rosie" in modern times, every older printing or reference had the first line something along the lines of "Ring-a-ring-a-roses".

I suppose that's all in how you interpret the song then!
Or interpret the history. Or interpret the backround (who in their right mind would really make a nursery rhyme of a plague?)

I highly doubt that. Especially when you consider that it was only called "Ring Around the Rosie" in modern times, every older printing or reference had the first line something along the lines of "Ring-a-ring-a-roses".
But have the other lyrics changed at all?

Or interpret the history. Or interpret the backround (who in their right mind would really make a nursery rhyme of a plague?)

You read the link Paul.Power supplied right?

But have the other lyrics changed at all?
Yes. So much so that the Wikipedia article shows how the rhyme differs in different regions.
And that's just in the present only!