Grand Theft Auto inspires Thai murder

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca How do you know this if you have not played the game?

I love the complete de-validation of second-hand understanding: which is only a primary building block human knowledge is built upon. "Standing on the shoulders of giants" is only possible through learning via analysing other's experiences.

But then, someone else will have to make this point, as Chewbacca will not read my contrasting opinions.

[Firestormalpha]

Originally Posted by Yorick I love the complete de-validation of second-hand understanding: which is only a primary building block human knowledge is built upon. "Standing on the shoulders of giants" is only possible through learning via analysing other's experiences. But then, someone else will have to make this point, as Chewbacca will not read my contrasting opinions.

Actually I found it really interesting. First Chewbaca said the 18 yr old wasn't qualified to say why he'd robbed and killed the cab driver.

Now he says that we can't claim how a game will affect us without playing it ourselves?

Is there a note of contradictive logic here?

[SpiritWarrior]

Well, I think that it's all relative in a sense. I feel like we're getting a little too hypersensitive in this debate about what is and is not influential in a game. Choosing the "evil" side in many of todays games isn't regarded as taboo, in fact it is encouraged and expected by gamers and develepors alike in the industry. The horde in WoW, the villian in City of Villains, the bad kid in Fable or even the evil alignment in BG2 or NWN's. Many of us will recall that the third dialogue options in our favourite D&D games were usually the "criminal" or "evil" choices. Just from playing NWN2 today I was presented with a dialogue option that read "You die now" and it had the words "Slit his throat" in asterix. If I were RPing an evil character I would have chosen that option (I wasn't it just so happens), but it has no bearing on my own actions. It's worth noting that tons of us here on IW have played these games and still do.

So, while I agree with many of the points being made, and do advocate that the system is needing a total rework, we also need to carry with us a healthy degree of realistic discernment whilst we continue this debate. The kind that seperates fiction from real life, and the actions that may follow it.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca Hey Cerek, Thanks. I am concerned when you write stuff like: How? What is it about the story or structure of the game that causes this "instinct feeding? How do you know this if you have not played the game? I hear your concerns on the damage to young pysche, and I think Nature provides us with parents and an ever-growing potential for good judgment to alleviate such concerns. But you stretch the truth of what the game really is and leave out it's many diverse compenents. You refer to it as a crime simulator, it is not. It is rather like a roleplaying game set in a simulated cityscape. You may commit crimes, but the cops are smart and lethal. "Bangin aint ez"! Being a criminal certainly isn't glorified. Nearly every criminal in the games gets killed or jailed. Getting away from cops can be over-simplistic and easy, but it is obviously a freaking game after all. GTA 4 is mainly the story of Nico Bellic. Yes, he is a killer, but do you know why? What about the vast setting; it's characters and beauty- complex, hilarious, tragic. Simply Amazing! Refering to it as a "crime simulator" is a lie at worst and extreme hyperbole at best and is most Def an insult to the people who love and know the game. As such, I would expect strong reactions and skeptical inquiry in response. Later!

I think most of us would agree that young adults (college age) have a natural desire to challenge the established authority/establishment/what have you. It's part of the process of establishing your own individual identity. Whether it is speaking out against political figures or challenging practices of a professor we feel are unfair, it is an almost instinctive behavior to be not only willing, but eager, to "take on the world". It's all part of the learning process we go through as we grow up. Now, this "challenging authority" is done in different ways and taken to different levels, depending on the individual, but I think each of us can identify a time when we felt it was necessary to "speak our mind" or speak out in protest against something, even when our own friends and/or family may have told us it was a bad idea.

When you add a game that also challenges the rules of society (such as GTA4) to this mix, it can reinforce the feelings a young adult may already be experiencing. The case in question is a pretty good example. The youth didn't set out to kill the taxi driver, he just wanted to see if stealing a taxi in real life was as easy as the game made it appear. It created a curiosity in him and apparantly offered reinforcement of some ideas he may have already considered (stealing a car to see if he could get away with it). I don't think he set out to kill the taxi driver, that was just a tragic turn of events that happened after he found out the game doesn't simulate r/l the way he thought it would. It's like the issues I mentioned to Bung earlier. How many minor incidents (such as accidents caused by running stops signs or red lights) occur because someone was "amped up" from playing GTA or a similar game. How many fights happen for the same reason that never get reported? Just because they don't result in the worst case scenario doesn't lessen the impact the game may have on the players r/l behavior.

As for the game itself, there isn't any way for me to play GTA4, because I have a regular X-Box and a PS2. Even if it is made for these platforms, the local media store doesn't have a PS2 copy available for rental. However, I have played games with a similar theme, specifically Hitman and Mafia. I could make the same points about Hitman that you make about GTA4. He is a guy just doing a job and most of his targets are other criminals, so what's the harm? I played through about the first 3 missions before I began to really feel uncomfortable with what I was doing. Even though it was a game, I just didn't like the fact that I was RPing a character that was a professional killer. Same thing with Mafia. The "training" portion included beating a guy with a baseball bat. While some of the actual "missions" just involved driving the car and trying to avoid the police, the overall goal of the game was to succeed at criminal activity - and the more I played, the less comfortable I felt about that.

So I can draw on my experiences from those games and apply them to GTA4, since it has similar plots and storylines.

[Chewbacca]

Cerek,
Your central argument still relies on the words of a sociopath and killer to be taken at face value. This is still not very convincing even when repeated.

The only thing that claims of 'Curiosity caused by GTA' proves is a very sick mind. Anyone who believes a videogame made them curious enough to kill needs all the help we can give in the form of an institution.

As to how much more antisocial behavior is caused by video games? I would have to conclude none. Why?

Simplest put....

Video games do not take away free will, impede the ability to make desicion, or inhibit the performance of intentional acts and therefore do not change moral behavior.

and BTW-
Comparing Mafia or Hitman with GTA 4 is a painfully bad comparison for a multitude of reasons.

Sorry dude, but you don't even know 10% of the game you judge.

[Yorick]

I just don't get why someone would even read a thread started by someone they have on their ignore list, let alone post in it, all the while ignoring the posts that make their arguments redundant.

Cerek, you're wasting your time. If you do make any logical points that actually offer a view that differs from Chewbacca, you'll be added to his ignore list like Fire and I.

What a way to hijack a thread. Makes a mockery of the whole concept of forums.

[Iron Greasel]

Originally Posted by Yorick People learn from example. Imitation. People formulate social behaviour and interaction through the learning situations in games.

Well, yes. They do. That I find obvious. Where does game theory come into it? Or is it used in testing violent tendencies? Compare people's scores in Prisoner's Dilemma before and after two hours of video games?

Anyway, I don't see learning as much of a problem in this context. I guess it's possible to learn behaviour models from games, but they are also learned from the real world. And people learn the real-world behaviour earlier than the game behaviour, and attempting to apply game behaviour to the real world results in immediate punishment.

Originally Posted by Yorick The other posts backed up this by citing proof that video games, more so than movies (because you ARE the protagonist) increase violent, aggressive, de-social and anti-social behaviour in people. It's over. It's proven. It's a fact. We should just be arguing what we do about it. Arguing that games don't cause these things is like suggesting the earth is flat. Get with reality and be constructive with solutions instead of arguing against proven facts.

But weren't you arguing that video games make people kill people? That this guy stabbed a taxi driver because and only because he had been playing GTA? Because that's at least what I've been arguing against. There is a difference between "more violent" and "murderous". Video games do not turn you into a homicidal maniac.

I already commented in an earlier post on why we shouln't take the taxi stabber kid's assesment on his motives at face value, but I suppose I can do it again so others won't have to go looking for it.

Firstly, he killed a man. While this does not make him inherently untrustworthy, it means that his view on the matter can't be very objective. He could be trying to avoid blame by saying that the game made him do it.
Secondly, he's talking about his own motivations. I know I can't always say why I do stuff, and from what I've read, people don't often cosciously think of their motivations until afterwards. And if he really only wanted to know if stealing a car is as easy in real life as it is in game, why didn't he first check the internet or something?

On a somewhat unrelated note, Yorick, your analogy sucks. Psychology is a newer science than astronomy, and on the whole, a lot less accurate. And in any case, studies made on the effects of games on people are fewer in number and less conclusive (even withouth Jaradu's input) than studies made on the shape of the planet Earth. The round earth, unlike violence-inducing video games, is also required for several other technologies and theories (such as, say, astronavigation) to work.