Irritated

I am tired of this. Yes, Grand Theft Auto is not a wholesome cuddly game that your seven year old should be playing (that's what the M/AO rating exists). But, this is just one game out of all the games produced every year (a vague fraction, I know). The earlier iterations of this "best selling series" were not at all realistic in any sense. They were designed as purely arcade games. Yes, you shot police officers, but the goal was to make money, and to not get the police to chase after you, that way you stayed alive longer and had more cash to buy better stuff to take better jobs.

In the linked article, the author asserts that "Young men that play Grand Theft Auto III were more likely to drink booze, smoke marijuana, and be defiant than those who played a 'low-violence' game based on The Simpsons cartoon television series, according to a study published this spring in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine." I would argue, that the proclivity of drinking, drug use, and defiance were already present. I find it hard to believe that a game can trigger a major change in behavior in a mentally healthy person. The author is right when he says that gaming increases blood pressure. I'm guessing that's related to the adrenaline produced while gaming. There is certainly a euphoric feeling after defeating some level that has challenged you greatly (rather like completing a programming project). On the other hand, the study focused on "players from homes or neighborhoods troubled by violence." This little bit is interesting, because these are people that have direct contact with the subject matter. Thus, would be more prone to react to stimuli associated with what they have experienced. I'm not sure what the cited study was supposed to prove. To use GTA as the benchmark for all "violent" games is a silly premise.

Admittedly, that wasn't my primary issue with the article. The headline is rather misleading: "'Grand Theft Auto,' driving the dark side of video games.' What is meant by the "dark side of games"?

Is it sexual content? As a friend of mine pointed out, GTA does have quite a bit of fornication in it. But, if that is the benchmark used, why isn't Leisure Suit Larry right along side it (that one is so debaucherous that I won't bother to link to it)? Thanks to Jon for pointing out this missing piece of my arguement.

Is it only real world violence? The Total War series is incredibly violent, though historically accurate. Armies march by the hundreds (and in the upcoming version, thousands) into each other. What about the Brothers In Arms games? I don't hear anyone complaining about these realistically violent WWII games. Did anyone think that Ghost Recon was a bad influence?

Or is it about sheer numbers or gore? Is the Unreal Tournament series causing random real-life deathmatch games to occur? Is Serious Sam making anyone think that a mini-gun and some one-liners can solve all of life's problems? Did Stubbs the Zombie make people start eating brains? Is it the gore and horror of F.E.A.R? Gibbing in Quake 3?

None of these are harolded as the bringer of the gaming apocolypse. Instead, one game is referenced and compared to "low-violence" games. I'm just asking for a little honesty in how this issue is presented. Do a side by side comparison with people who play Grand Theft Auto, and gamers* who play some of the above mentioned games. That might tell more about who is playing what and what the effects of those games are.

Grand Theft Auto is not the driving force behind the "dark side of gaming." It's the media and the public. It seems to me that GTA has gotten more press than any other game I can name at this moment. So, I have to ask, might this be somehow connected to the high sales numbers? Please, can we stop telling people that games are the root of all evil? Bad things were happening long before GTA appeared, and will continue long after no one cares about it anymore. Perhaps we should focus on instilling in people an understanding of civic and personal responsibility and respect, instead of thinking that removing one game will make everything better (you know, that might make the game go away anyway) [1] [2] [3] [4].

*Yes, I draw a distinction between a "gamer" and a person who plays games. This is a recent shift in terminology that should not have occurred. A couple of years ago, a gamer was someone who knew exactly what made the games work. They knew what bump-mapping meant. They knew what was inside their computer/console. Now, anyone who picks up a controller is a gamer, and that is a sad thing.

To all of you faux gamers out there, I just have one thing to say: Is that a three-headed monkey behind you?