On a different note - Morality and Video games

[orichalcum]

The New York Times just gave an incredibly favorable review to the new Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City (aka NYC) game. It praises the game's graphics, its sandbox design, its music, its variability, etc...

Nowhere in the review does the reviewer (Seth Schiesel) comment on the relative morality of the game or what age group it might be suitable for.

Keep in mind that, aside from the robbery, assault, carjacking, etc.. plots....this is a game in which you (_can_ - Edited for accuracy, thanks redhound) hire prostitutes, have sex with them, and _then kill them._ That's what women are for in the game context. Not one of the numerous characters mentioned in the review is female. In the preview, female strippers at a strip club talk about how stripping arouses them. The online dating club is called "The Twat."

So...my question is - should reviews in this case query the moral and age-appropriate content of a game? Admittedly, I don't necessarily expect reviews of, say, Sex and the City to condemn it for questionable relationships, or Deadwood to be slammed because of all the obscenity. But I'd kinda like to know about it in both cases.

GTA crosses the line for me where I wish, I really wish, that someone was devoting all that effort to making a game with content that I'd feel comfortable playing. But while it may have great gameplay, the thought of selling it to 10-year-olds upsets me.

Am I overreacting? Should this game just be evaluated on the basis of whether it's fun to play?

Comments

[meepodeekin.livejournal.com]

I don't think you are overreacting. The GTA games are supposed to be really fun, but I have refused to even look at playing any of them.

I am reminded of an argument I got into on the Neverwinter Nights online fora a few years back--some people were discussing playing as an evil pc. (There are actions, quests, items, etc that only an evil character can get.) Another player said that she could never see herself playing an evil character because she couldn't, for example, kill innocent bystanders to keep her alignment rating. (In the game alignment is measured on a 0-100 scale and if you go above 30 you "lose" your evilness and all its benefits.) A large number of people on the thread attacked this woman, saying that she was an idiot and a prude and a neurotic and that game actions aren't real etc etc. I tried to stand up for her. I don't think it's ok to kill an innocent child, even if that child is 2d. I don't necessarily have a problem with another adult doing it in their own home, but I never would. It makes me sick to think about it. And the idea that kids are playing this game with an evil alignment encouraged (or, in the case of GTA, required) really bugs me.

Long diversion, sorry. What I meant to say was, I agree with you.

[gee-tar.livejournal.com]

From what I understand of GTA IV, the number of heinous acts you are required to do is to advance plot is relatively minimal. The number you are allowed to do is quite high, but I think there is a real difference between required action to continue gameplay versus being given the freedom and the existential choice of setting your own moral compass.

[meepodeekin.livejournal.com]

There is a huge difference, you're right. I haven't actually played any of them, so I wouldn't know. Which, to be fair, is exactly why this sort of content should be in a review. Even if it's just to say that it's not as bad as previous editions and it's safe for people like me to stop boycotting now.

As in my anecdote above, I am fine with buying and playing a game that has evil options in an RP or sandbox setting. But I don't want to be required or strongly pushed to use them, because I won't.