I'm so sorry.

Are you arguing against games and entertainment in general? Do you feel bad in Super Mario about having to jump on Bowser's children? You're painting GTA as a some special case, but most video games outside of sims put you in positions where you HAVE to do something similar. Same goes for movies - if Bruce Willis punches a cop, I don't get a "OH MY GOD, THAT'S SO WRONG - WHY WOULD HE DO SUCH A THING?" -feeling for the actor who pretended to get punched on screen.

And yes. Doing something I would never want to do in real life can be entertaining.

Again, for the exact same reasons that millions of people are entertained by watching Tony Soprano and Micky and Mallory Knox do similar things - The Sopranos was one of my dear, grey haired parent's favourite series and Natural Born Killers is one of ultra-lefty tree-hugging girlfriend's favourite films
Watching or playing ruthless, harsh, committers of atrocities is thrilling, exhilarating, and horrifying but horror is a popular entertainment genre too - if you don't want escapism in your games go back to playing your fork lift driver simulators! (and yes I know San Andreas had a mission that was effectively a fork lift driver simulator too - I'm trying to forget it as best I can...)

lol it probably have to do it people getting violent now a days and like more gta type violent games.

I played the first chapter very thoroughly (done every side quest, visited every location, etc.). This left me with a feeling of utter disgust. I looked a bit into the second chapter to see if the promised "mature story" would surface at some point, but it didn't look that way. I then watched some gameplay videos about the later chapter to see if I was missing something, but the content seemed very similar to what I was experiencing already.

If there is something in the latter chapters that turns this around, then I may indeed have missed it - so that's definitely a valid criticism to my statements, though I would ask to not simply dismiss them on grounds of "didn't play the whole game", I think that would be a bit too easy. However, these hidden contents would then have to be something which for some reason eluded not only the gameplay of the entire first chapter (and parts of the second), but also all the videos that I watched. Most of those deal with rampant killing sprees and car stunts, even when they are about the late game. You say that there are repercussions for the player's actions - does he ever grow _not_ able to do the things I mentioned above (stealing cars under the nose of the police, rampant killing sprees that are forgotten when the police loses sight of you for a minute)?

He's not looking for a better life, he's looking for revenge (another not very mature concept, but one that's admittedly a staple of storytelling especially in action-based settings).

Well ... on a theoretical level what you're saying makes sense, but I have difficulties relating it to the actual scenes in the game. Is it really so necessary that you shoot a man in the knee instead of giving a warning shot first? Is it really so necessary to kill a defenseless man? Was it not possible to send him to another city (the game provides an excuse this, but it's terribly lame and hypocritical). Even if the guy _has_ to end up dead to facilitate the rest of the intended story, would it really be impossible to tell the story if he had died with a weapon in his hand?

The amount of violent crime has been on a steady decline since the 1980's.

Not every game has to have morals, some can just be silly and violent because that's what games are good at. How thoughtful a game is or how applicable its morals are in real life are not indicators of a game's overall quality. GTA games do not try to teach you how to behave and I don't think they need to.

Sorry but when you're a gamer who says "rampant killing sprees and car stunts" like its a BAD thing it might be time you hung up your gamepad and retired!

Actually if I have a problem with any game genre its the realistic depiction of war in the 'Total War' games, because thousands of young men killing each other on battlefield is something that really does happen and has happened throughout history and in terms of sheer scale is far worse than GTA!

Sorry I assumed it was just the plot that bothered you. As for what you've said, those things i find really enjoyable, I would not enjoy it if for every grannie I ran over I had to spend 15 minutes int he time-out zone.

I'd understand your point if you disliked violent videogames in general, but I don't get is how you can enjoy Bloodbowl, and frown upon GTAIV's violence at the same time, I mean the concept is practically the same, except one focuses on fantasy football and the other about criminals.

But it is, it depicts the life of the average criminal in a completely exaggerated way gloryifing it at the beginning, and taking the piss out of it as the story unfolds, that's the basic plot of every GTA game.

Except the first 2 which basically were about getting points while going on killing sprees (And yes it was fun as hell imho)



http://www.javidpower.com/lastblood/

well i guess people can now bend their anger on games then in life,

I played 3 GTA games: GTA 2, GTA 3 and Vice City.

The thing I enjoyed the most about GTA was driving arcade style around the city while the police was chasing me and listening to the crazy radio, changing vehicle when the one I got was too wrecked.

Beyond that, I can have an evil sense of humor at times so I did get a chuckle out of doing things like hijacking a cab, picking someone up, driving around like a complete wacko, stop and watch the customer run away while the taxi is in flames. I got a chuckle out of watching the military barge into the city for one troublemaker or becoming an "international crisis" based on the ruckus I was causing in one city.

That being said, I am an adult and the amount of enjoyment I can get from the above is not limitless. It does get old.

For me, the absurd humor is what made the games. The being a gangster fantasy goes miles over my head and that later games took that direction more and more was not a positive element for me (more absurd humor, less gangster storyline was more my cup of tea).

The funniest game in the series for me was probably GTA 2, because the overhead caricature style of it better outline the shear absurdity of it all.

So yeah, it's fun once in a while, but I don't feel compelled to play an endless string of similar sequels about it or fork out 60$ for it.

The recent promo of Rogue Legacy got me more excited than the GTA V release. Enough said.

Its the same with Lady Gaga and Justin Bibier: the sold millons of millons but that means they're the best singers in world story? That their songs are the finest musical achievement? If many enjoy their music, good for them, but I prefer other music, my loved classic.

DO NOT COMPARE GTA TO BIEBER AND GAGA!!!

People who don't like GTA don't like it because of personal preference. People who don't like Justin and Lady don't like them because they have taste. There IS a difference.

I LOVED Vice City because of its setting and atmosphere and music. I played that game just to cruise around the city and I also really enjoyed Vice City Stories.

HOWEVER.

GTA III: grey and dull as fuck world
GTA IV: brown and dull as fuck
San Andreas: same.

The atmosphere in all but Vice City is brown or grey, dull and stifling. I like the driving but let's face it, combat has always been fiddly and many of the missions were hit & miss.

I found Saints Row 3 to be way better than GTA IV - it had character and punch, *gasp* COLOURS! It didn't block your fun by forcing you to play through most of the game to get access to most stuff. I did some of it, just nowhere near as bad as GTA games tend to do it.

But, GTA games are still way better than most other generic console crap. You have a large degree of freedom, a lot of things you can do sandbox style, a lot of potential for hilarious encounters and in general it's a game where YOU create the fun.