Quote from: chuckles



What GTA does is deflect the real horror of violence by making it an excuse for brutal machismo,  As in: "Damn, I sure feel bad ass punking that bitch.  Ain't I a hardcore, ain't I G'd up. (with a dash of Capitalism for added flavor.)"



Somebody didn't call it, I assume, but they should have: hood tourism, masquerading as street cred


Do I really need to go on?  Watch the news, listen to the radio, head to any reasonably sized metropolitan area.  These things are unbearable.  Soon GTA will seem benign, as video games continue to get more and more brutal.

So is it a little more clear now?

I didn't take Pierce as defending GTA actually.

I will though, it's a fun game, good art defeats bad morality for me every time.  If Dogs were a better game it's adolescent morality wouldn't trouble me.

And it's not about the fantasy of being a gangsta, it's about open gameplay with tons of features which make no real sense but which are tons of fun and some really solid design of challenges and use of evocative art styles.  Though the spacing of save points is a fucking bitch and there's no excuse for them on the PC.  The thing people frequently miss with the GTA series is irrespective of its content, it's an incredibly well designed game.

Funny, chuckles doesn't get the point, either.

Head to a metropolitan area? Thanks for the advice, I lived in East Harlem for three months. The diff between GTA and that pirate shit is the former isn't claiming to teach a tacky lesson about the human con-FUCKING-dition.

But it doesn't register. Dingdong, nobody home. And so, I'm throwing my hands in the air theatrically, side with Settembrini and say: Exceptions proving the rule, a whole generation has been emotionally soap-operatified. -> Watch LESS tv. There's no real violence on there.

EDIT: Balbinus, we miss you!

Ripley and Clockwork Orange are excellent examples of what I'm talking about. I don't know Brighton Rock, but I guess I should...

What is so wrong with calling sick stuff...well "sick stuff" ?

I'd never want to game with someone who thought that violating an NPC's corpse made him a better gamer - Thats a twisted(WRONg twisted) individual I don't want at my game table.

To use that example to promote a game is almost equally wrong.

 Why can't these FORGE "designers" just get therapists and not inflict their games on the world?



- Ed C.

Quote from: BalbinusBy contrast, challenging Forge stuff is basically 14 year olds showing how edgy they are.  It's pampered rich folk playing at experiencing the world's underbelly, it's disaster tourism (which sadly now really exists, people pay to go on guided tours of warzones to see what's happening on the ground, how sick is that?).  This is the gaming equivalent.

Absolutely. Which is why i posted this to pundits thread about 'the most mature thing you're done in gaming'

Well, there's 'adult' and then there's 'mature'. Those two words do seem to get switched around a lot with 'adult' being more likely to be stuff that an adolescent would consider 'mature'.

Quote from: jeff37923As cute as this latest Forge advertising thread is, a game that encourages its players via mechanics to deliberately fuck over each other in game will not be commercially viable because it will turn off most of its potential buyers. So, with this in mind, I'd like people to remember this shining example of a Forge game when someone whines about why most indie games don't sell and why game store owners won't carry them.

It's so commercially unviable that it sold out it's run at GenCon.

One of the copies that was sold there was bought by yours truly.  And to say that people are mischaracterizing this game is a massive understatement.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityFunny, chuckles doesn't get the point, either.

Head to a metropolitan area? Thanks for the advice, I lived in East Harlem for three months. The diff between GTA and that pirate shit is the former isn't claiming to teach a tacky lesson about the human con-FUCKING-dition.

But it doesn't register. Dingdong, nobody home. And so, I'm throwing my hands in the air theatrically, side with Settembrini and say: Exceptions proving the rule, a whole generation has been emotionally soap-operatified. -> Watch LESS tv. There's no real violence on there.

EDIT: Balbinus, we miss you!

Ripley and Clockwork Orange are excellent examples of what I'm talking about. I don't know Brighton Rock, but I guess I should...

You should read Brighton Rock, definitely.  Graham Greene at his incredibly depressing finest.  I'm part way through Hangover Square by Patrick Hamilton currently which may also be worthwhile, you me and Droog should start a decent literature thread (decent as in not shite) over on Off Topic some time, Droog knows his books too.

You have to watch with Greene by the way, blink and you can miss one line that changes the whole book.  A lot of folk still think Our Man in Havana has a happy ending when the ending if you actually pay attention is tragic.

Personally incidentally I grew up in what you would call in the US the projects, a truly shitty low rise council estate in one of the poorer parts of London, almost everyone unemployed and heavy drug use and crime.  GTA is a fantasy, it has nothing to do with that (not that I know the American experience of course, but I do know what poverty is like and it's not dayglo).  You don't need personal experience to see that though, I don't believe one need experience something to be able to take a view on it.

Does the game claim to provide moral lessons about the bad stuff?  Does it talk about exploring themes of depravity and violence?

I ask because I haven't seen anything about the game itself and I think a lot of people are extrapolating or making assumptions just because it's an "indie" game.  DitV didn't do any moralizing or try to make deep psychological statements about conflict.

Maybe it just encourages the players to go for it (it being the evil, depraved extreme).  

I'm just curious, because if it does, I'm interested.  If it's about exploring what that means or whatever, than I'm not.

Quote from: RezendevousIt's so commercially unviable that it sold out it's run at GenCon.

One of the copies that was sold there was bought by yours truly.  And to say that people are mischaracterizing this game is a massive understatement.

To be fair, it was fans that mischaracterised it.

That said, I prefer internet discussions based on ignorance, they're more fun, it's why I love the 4e stuff so much.  We don't get guys like you there bringing facts into play and killing the fun.  My ideal thread is a bitter flamewar about a game that never actually gets released.

Ah well, it was too good to last, I'm guessing the players in that rpg.net thread brought that shit to the game and it's not necessarily there in the written text any more than it is in say Cyberpunk.  Would I be right?

Quote from: BalbinusTo be fair, it was fans that mischaracterised it.

That said, I prefer internet discussions based on ignorance, they're more fun, it's why I love the 4e stuff so much.  We don't get guys like you there bringing facts into play and killing the fun.  My ideal thread is a bitter flamewar about a game that never actually gets released.

Ah well, it was too good to last, I'm guessing the players in that rpg.net thread brought that shit to the game and it's not necessarily there in the written text any more than it is in say Cyberpunk.  Would I be right?

Yep, they did first, but that doesn't excuse people doing that here.  People shouldn't make judgments about games until they've actually played them (which is why I'm trying really hard to take what I'm hearing about 4E with a grain of salt), or at the very least read the game themselves.

And yes, it's not there in the game unless you bring it yourself.  No neck-fucking rules in the copy I have, at least.

*double post*

Quote from: Pierce InverarityHead to a metropolitan area? Thanks for the advice, I lived in East Harlem for three months. The diff between GTA and that pirate shit is the former isn't claiming to teach a tacky lesson about the human con-FUCKING-dition.

But the similarity is that they can both be fun. And that, being as how this is a game, is the point.

I understand your problem, I just don't find it very important.

Yes but according to the descriptions in that thread ...the game rewards brutality and appears to encourage it.


 No thank you.

 That stuff is for bad guy/evil NPCs that I want my players to dislike - NOT for the players to be involved in.

- Ed C.

Quote from: RezendevousYep, they did first, but that doesn't excuse people doing that here.  People shouldn't make judgments about games until they've actually played them (which is why I'm trying really hard to take what I'm hearing about 4E with a grain of salt), or at the very least read the game themselves.

And yes, it's not there in the game unless you bring it yourself.  No neck-fucking rules in the copy I have, at least.

You are officially no fun at all.

I've looked at the original thread now too, as best I can tell it's a group's actual play that brought in the saddo edgy stuff, not the game as written.

I do still think it's adolescent and emo-tourism as someone wonderfully said up above.  But I'm talking about a style of play now, not about the actual written game.

I've seen similar Dogs threads, people boasting about how kewl it was when their character blew some kid away (in a non-sexual sense I believe), it just comes across as a bit patheticand pampered, but I owned Dogs and nothing in it requires that.

Quote from: KoltarYes but according to the descriptions in that thread ...the game rewards brutality and appears to encourage it.


 No thank you.

 That stuff is for bad guy/evil NPCs that I want my players to dislike - NOT for the players to be involved in.

- Ed C.

At the risk of taking the Forge side for a moment, that's a reason for not buying certainly but is it any more than that?  Is it ultimately any different to that d20 tome of ultimate evil (apparent from probably better designed and written)?

Quote from: BalbinusI didn't take Pierce as defending GTA actually.

I will though, it's a fun game, good art defeats bad morality for me every time.  If Dogs were a better game it's adolescent morality wouldn't trouble me.

And it's not about the fantasy of being a gangsta, it's about open gameplay

I've only played GTA III, not all the way through, and I will cop to enjoying the content; in fact, I think that elements of the gameplay ultimately soured me on the game sooner than the content did. (I.e., I gave up on sniping that dude over at the waterfront, it was just too hard, while in terms of gameplay I think I enjoy 1st/3rd person shooters, RTS, and flight sims better.)

But did I take the content seriously? No, I took it as a seriously ironic take on both modern urban life and on pop-media portrayals of street life and organized crime. In short, pretty irresponsible, playful, dark comedy, more Pulp Fiction than Scarface. (And I love Pulp Fiction, while Scarface left me cold at best.)