Journalist Calls Out PTC on GTA IV Drunk Driving Claims

May 9, 2008 -

Taking  the Parents Television Council up on an interview offer, Phil Villarreal of the Arizona Daily Star spoke with Dan Isett (left), PTC Director of Public Policy about Grand Theft Auto IV.

Along with a number of other watchdog groups, the PTC has been highly critical of GTA IV in recent days. Villarreal, however, reports that Isett's knowledge of what is actually in the game is a bit lacking:

Isett: I’ve actually played ‘Grand Theft Auto IV,’ and it’s right in keeping with previous versions. The series continues to lower the bar and this is the first game that has an alcohol content warning. You get points for driving drunk in this game.

Villarreal: You know that’s not true, right? The game doesn’t have points.

Isett: If nothing else, it’s a rewarded activity. Necessary for advancement.

Villarreal: I don’t think so.

Isett: But there’s an alcohol content warning and a scene of drunk driving, correct?

Villarreal: Yes. Did you play that part?

Isett: No, no. I didn’t get that far...


Comments

I wonder where these folks were when Vice City featured the "Boomshine Saigon" mission, in which the utterly smashed Phil Cassidy blasts his arm off and starts spouting bizarre Vietnam-inspired messages about black crows coming to take him away while the screen spins and dilates as Tommy Vercetti tries to drive him to the hospital? That was one of the most surreal gaming experiences I'd ever had, yet I never heard nary a word of complaint against its portrayal of the dangerous use of explosives.
---
Fangamer

I find it amazing that someone (or some organization) would make a national campaign of railing against a form of media without observing it for themselves. It takes a good deal of work to put together a national campaign like this, would it kill someone in office to sit down a play the game first?

@ Simon Roberts

That was a mandatory mission in the game, and it is quite clear that these type of people don't play the game; so they would have no idea that it's in there. Besides, the naysayers focus on the optional, non-important aspects of the game.

When you get drunk in GTA4, your friend tells you probably shouldn't drive and suggests you call a cab. If you ignore him and drive drunk anyway, it's very difficult, you're likely to crash and/or hit pedestrians, and if the cops see you they will pull you over and arrest you.

That's totally the same as the game requiring you to drive drunk in order to advance, right?

Why didn't the interviewer tell him that? His response of "I don’t think so" is so disappointing. I wanted to hear that ignorant asshole get *shut down*. It was a perfect opportunity, wasted. :(

You'd think the PTC would have learned it's lesson years ago about false information when they paid the WWF/E three million to settle a lawsuit brought against them due to the BS they were spreading.

Wow he was not right about anything. Including them lowering the bar. If anything the bar has been raised. The violence is barely graphic, any negative behavior is punished, and, most importantly, the graphics sure are pretty.

Isett = Fail

I've never even played the GTA games, and this is rediculous! Made me laugh, though :D Asshole. He judges a game and insists he knows everything about it, then admits he hasn't finished it. GP, please tell me you made this whole thing up...this can't be court!

@Kovitlac

Actually, this is par for the course. The 'experts' have seen 5 minutes of video, have never played the game, and are latched onto an idea that can easily be proven as wrong.

Just a normal day in the week for Game Politics I think.

So you admit you are a shit talker then? Well I never imagined...

Adding to Simon Roberts' post, an LiveJournal friend of mine pointed out that in Saints Row, you could get drunk and high while driving and nobody said anything about that then.

No, Isett, don't bullshit us. You think we were born yesterday? You didn't get this far in the game because it was impossible for you, for the simple reason you simply didn't put the game inside the console. Heck, if you've read the back cover of the game, I'd already be surprised. Moron.

First thing I did when I played the game was check up online and find out how to drive drunk. Bad idea. The only reward I can see is pulling off a god-awesome stunt and posting a video on YouTube.

Just about every crime you break in a GTA game is a punished behavior. You rack up money (Might as well be points, I guess), but the higher that wanted level goes, the harder it is to do anything except hide under a bridge and hope the cops keep driving into the river instead of taking the ramp around the other side. Its fun going on a rampage, but if you're in the game to finish it (which is what I generally consider the "reward"), you're not getting very far by making a big scene all the time.

I actually drove drunk in the game for the first time today. Not only is it not a 'rewarded activity' but it's incredibly stupid from a gameplay perspective. The police are all over you if they even get a hint that you're driving drunk and, since you're weaving all over the road the odds are very high that they'll catch you. Then, since you can't even walk straight they'll either lock you up (confiscating your weapons - a decidedly BAD thing) or put you in hospital - neither of which are 'rewards' as far as I can see. Personally, I don't play the game with the goal of getting jailed or shot - maybe Dan Isett does.

In fact, as others have said, the game consistently punishes 'violence for its own sake'. The best course of action is almost always to keep the level of violence low. For instance, when you're tasked with killing a gang and the police show up you'd be crazy to start shooting police. The only mission I've seen where this isn't the case is the bank robbery, where you have to defend yourself by shooting cops.

bitch FUCK MOTHERING slapped

This guy obviously doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

In other news, ignorance has once again reached never before seen levels...
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Mattsworknamei I hope there is, I love that series.04/25/2015 - 5:59pm
Matthew Wilson@matt I am sure there will never be a armored core game04/25/2015 - 5:24pm
Mattsworknameof From softwares recent games, bloodborne is the best work they have done yet, though they really need to get to work on armored core 604/25/2015 - 5:10pm
Matthew WilsonLost Kingdoms came out in 2002 this day. I played that game. I did not relize it was made by From Software. Lost Kingdoms was a good unique hard game.04/25/2015 - 4:56pm
MattsworknameOff topic, but, who heres playing Bloodborne, and if so, is it mercillesly murdering you every chance it gets?04/25/2015 - 7:35am
Matthew WilsonI think its a good article, and devs can take some lessons from life is strange.04/24/2015 - 10:24pm
Andrew EisenI tinyURL'd it. The world is safe!04/24/2015 - 10:23pm
Matthew Wilson@AE my bad there is nothing I can do about that.04/24/2015 - 10:21pm
Andrew EisenLooks like the spoiler is right there in the URL.04/24/2015 - 10:20pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://tinyurl.com/ok9pf6b a interesting opinion piece on the life is strange episode 2, and a dark event that happens in it. full warning major spoilers.04/24/2015 - 10:11pm
Matthew Wilson@mech no just she, nor her co workers have not. she never said it is not real.04/24/2015 - 8:58pm
MechaCrashWas she saying "I haven't experienced it," or "I haven't experienced it therefore it does not exist"?04/24/2015 - 8:31pm
ZippyDSMleeoy the skyrim paid mod thing is going over well. My 2 lints, I would not mind if Skyrim had a full SDK and not a crappy lil editor....04/24/2015 - 6:46pm
Andrew EisenWell, that is indeed crappy and nonsensical.04/24/2015 - 3:45pm
Matthew Wilsonshe got attacked for saying that she personaly has not experienced the harassment some other female devs have, and she got acused of defending GG and ignoring harassment. she ended up getting dog piled because of it.04/24/2015 - 3:43pm
Andrew EisenFine but do you recall ANY details at all?04/24/2015 - 3:38pm
Matthew Wilsonit was several weeks ago now, and I will admit to not saving it.04/24/2015 - 3:36pm
Andrew EisenAttacked HOW and by WHOM for not writing off WHO as evil? Do you have a link or anything?04/24/2015 - 3:31pm
Matthew Wilsonthat is the whole point she was not attacked for saying anything. she was attacked for being willing to debate in the first place, and not just write them off as evil.04/24/2015 - 3:28pm
Andrew EisenI know there's not a lot of room in the Shout box but goodness you're being vague.04/24/2015 - 3:26pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician