GTA IV: Going Too Far? - Movies vs. Video Games

Many movies over time have had cities like NYC blown up before: planes crash into them, massive biological and chemical bombs explode in them. What is so special about video games that that's where the line is drawn? In a game it’s only in the game and isn’t “real life.”  Movies may actually be shot in the city. Games like GTA don’t have rights to all the buildings and advertisements that appear in the real city, whereas in movies it’s as if it is happening right there in the city. 

Grand Theft Auto isn’t the only game to get this treatment.  Tom Clancy’s Ghost recon Advanced Warfighter 2 was put on NYC’s bad list when it was revealed that it too would have missions in NYC.  The negative side to GTA IV is that you get rewarded for killing, stealing and smuggling in the game, where with Ghost Recon you actually try and save the day. 

If they are going to allow movies such as Independence Day to blow up a dozen cities and kill millions, why can’t we have a game that does much of the same?  Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six: Vegas, was also not received too happily by Las Vegas officials.  In that game you save the city from terrorists, and in movies like Oceans 11 you see the main characters rob a casino.  I’m not a genius, but I see little difference between movie violence and video games.

When gamers saw the trailer for the first time their reaction was excitement.  Forums lit up with posts cheering it and saying it will be a “must have” game.  Apparently not many games are against this life-like city setting. I for one am in favor of it; I think it will be fun to go around a real city and do illegal things such as flying down the highway, hitting another car and seeing a 10 car pileup. 

Am I going to go do this in real life after I see it in the game? No way!  It’s just a game. I doubt this will increase violence or shootings in NYC. 

Next: Rockstar’s Reaction >>
 

More Gaming Articles
More By jkabaseball