Hello? SPOILERS?!

>_

ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

I'm not done with the game yet!

@gs2005:

Yep. I well remember the Dukakais campaign. Which makes me wonder why Estrich so frequently trumpets the fact that she managed that campaign. Don't most people leave their epic failures off their resume?

Hmmm...

I seem to recall the implied ending for either GTA III or VC where Sonny shoots dead the blathering bimbo to silence her.

I also recall a number of TV shows where female characters seem to be given "immunity" to injury or even death. There are a great many times when "you're a man so you're expendable" seems to play heavily into story plots. As if someone is afraid to have a female character injured or killed because bigot will scream "violence against women!", which does tend to happen when someone crosses that line.

Remember, in Mass Effect, you have to choose letting either a Male character die or a Female character die. So... what's your reason for saving one or the other?

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

Please put a spoiler alert up Dennis, I completed it last night, but there are some people who havent obviously

Thanks

Oh and that woman is a hypocrtitical cow

I never have understood the whole "Well, my child is fine, it's those *other* kids you need to worry about" mentality.

Fookin' hypocrite!!

*Insert Willie Horton joke here.*

Like I said before, all the complaints about GTA IV to me have become one long droning sound...except whenever JT says something. Then it becomes a shrill whine.

Can you use spoiler alert tags please? jesus, thanks for that.

For some reason, video games are held to a different standard than movies. And video games aren't art to them.

At the end though, we should just ignore her, anyone who signed off on any part of Dukakis' campaign should just hide.

spoiled :(

Yeah - it's ok for movies like Scarface to be ever bit as violent - any one disagree with me that it is? No shortage of 4 letter words there either.

What about SAW? Hostel? Etc..

But it's ok if it's a movie... just the typical hypocrisies of politicians. Nothing new.

It' comes down to this - plain and simple - they aren't getting as much of the 'piece of the pie' from video games as they would like to - and seek to dip deeper into the till.

@FroggersRevenge:

Her quote "but think of what else they could be doing. And aren’t.” is pretty out of touch. It's like criticizing Martin Scorsese for not being like Jim Henson.

[...] GamePolitics wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptIn the latest media whinge about GTA IV, syndicated columnist Susan Estrich (left), who ran Michael Dukakis’ ill-fated 1988 presidential campaign, criticizes some of the game’s non-interactive plot elements: From what I’ve heard about the ending… In one version, so I’m told, your cousin and his bride die in a drive-by shooting at their wedding. In another, your girlfriend gets killed… [...]

Spoiler warning would be nice. Future reference.

This woman is a menace.

@ Glen

There was one there about 15 minutes before you posted...

Wow. Way to ruin the ending you jerk.

A touch two-faced? Completely two-faced!
She should consider heeping her nose out of others buisness before she goes interfering. Maybe she should ask her son his opinions and stick to them. It isn't harming him, nor is it harming countless others out there. Leave our entertainment alone!

What an idiot bitch.

Gameboy: "I don’t see her so much on the fence on this issue as attempting to seem resonable. "

That's a bad faith argument. You're assuming she's lying. And if we just assume she's lying, we can think all sorts of nasty things about her that her actual writing doesn't imply.

Yes, that last paragraph is very strongly worded; but notice how she is addressing Rockstar directly and not calling for angry mobs to descend on them, or even claiming to speak for anybody else. That's how civil free speech is supposed to work. How is that problematic, in your opinion?

The other paragraph seems to be saying that the best parenting policy when it comes to media is "honesty and communication." Is that supposed to offend gamers?

Phew, I stopped reading just in time to avoid the spoiler. Erm... not a great idea to be posting spoilers here.

@nightwng2000

about which one to save, it could depend of if your character had been developing a relationship with one of them. after all, if you had put a bunch of effort into developing a relationship with one of the characters that die, you wouldn't want that one to die.

Why would he mention that She was Dukakis' campaign manager? He failed horribly and will always be known for a horrible photo-op.

@anthony:

Dukakis' "tank" campaign ad was about as ill-thought out and ill-advised as that photo-op of Bush on the deck of the carrier with nuts all scrunched up in that ridiculous fighter pilot get-up.

I stopped reading at "so I'm told", so I was safe from the spoiler.

Yuuri,
That's why I saved her the first time I played. I haven't had the chance to replay and be the fullest potential of bahstard that I can be. :)

Nightwng2000
NW2K Sottware

Sorry about my double post, but all I see her saying is this: It's okay for films to depict violence in there plots but in vido games it's a big no no uless of course her son is playing it!

Off topic did anyone get my Mean Street homage?

This reminds me of the Jon Stewart video where the one Congressman talked about how a kid in a suburban environment will be OK. But a kid in a violent neighborhood where drugs, gangs and homicides are common is going to turn out badly if they play GTA.

Did anyone stop to think, for even a second, that maybe the reason a kid in that environment turns out badly is because of the environment, not the game? It's crazy I know, but I think it's possible.

Ok everybody listen to me. The wife does not die who is Mallorie only Roman does die. the other part is where your friend dies.

@ Nightwng2000

I let Kaiden die everytime. I hate his voice actor.

@FroggersRevenge

“It’s a shame and a waste, and it portends a generation going down the tubes. “Rockstar,” my you-know-what. Shame on you. You owe the kids who worship you — and line your coffers — better than this garbage.”

Your standard for civil speech is obviously very different than mine. How exaclty is saying that a generation is going down the tubes, that a game that took hundreds of hours to create and vast amounts of money garbage and the markedly stupid "Rockstar, my you-know-what" comment civil? I may not like modern art, but I've never called a work I don't like "garbage".

She is also falling into the trap that video games are soley for children, and that simply is a faulty argument. All of the GTA games have been rated M, the rating that says not for those under 17. She also goes back to the argument that playing video games is going to destroy this generation. This not only shows a lack of knowledge about how long many gamers have been around, but it's also foolish to think a form on entertainment can erevocably damage an entire generation.

God damnit why the hell did you have to spoil the godfather I haven't sene that movie (but I plan to very soon).

You better not spoil part 2.

@Grendal

You forgot to mention how she started off saying that games won't nut up the little ones, then she hops into the usual "EVIIIIILLL!!!" arguement. CONTRADICTIVE MUCH???

@GRIZZAM 512

Yeah I did forget that, I think at this point I just blank things like that because it has become so common for critics of video games to start off by claiming that games are not destructive, and then list off all the ways games will destroy the next generation.

It has almost reached the level that I could make a drinking games based on how soon from the starting sentence of "I respect the first amendment" or "video games will not destroy this generation" to the point were they list how games should be legislated or how the next generation will be filled with degenerates or murderers. Admittedly this would probably be just to dull the pain of insipid argument and no grasp of history by the authors.

@ Gameboy

No problem, from the article it is fairly clear she has already made up her mind about GTA with only limited exposure to it. Further she uses tactics that make it extremely difficult to actually argue with here. This section especially

"Trying to prove that video games cause violence is a bit like trying to prove that pornography causes crime against women or even that the death penalty deters crime. Figures don’t lie, but people do — and they manipulate, as well. Most people who look at porn or play violent video games live normal, healthy lives, but that doesn’t mean they’re good for you. You can find states that have the death penalty and high murder rates, and states that don’t and have much lower murder rates".

How does one refute this? She has already said that just because she can see no ill effect doesn't mean their are none, she has also put forward the argument that statistics are an unreliable basis for an argument. She is essentially asking for objective proof that no harm can come from video games, while at the same time saying that statistics are not a valid way to show this.

If I tried to pull something like that is a class discussion my professor would rightly chastise me for using an argument that can't be refuted by evidence. Saying that games will have a detrimental effect even if the player in question shows no evidence is an abhorrent argument. She is essentially saying "you can't prove that there are absolutely no ill effects to playing games, so their probably are, also no statistics because those can be manipulated".

So while I applaud her openness with her son, and the fact that she believe in personal responsibility I have no intention of letting her off the hook for using at a minimum poor language to express her opinion and at the maximum using an argument that she knows cannot be refuted deliberately to make her opinion appear absolute.

And in yet another game obviously aligned with Satan, the flower girl DIES.

I'm kinda failing to see the spoiler actually, unless GTA4 has 2 possible endings from the way you play it. She basically says "From what I've heard" *ending 1* "or" *ending 2* "happens." Even if she does have one right how will you know until you see it? How does a little unspecific 1 sentence statement completely ruin the entire game by possibly saying what the ending is with hardly any detail. I find it hard to believe that 1 sentence compares in any way to actually viewing the ending especially when one considers all the game play leading up to it. It bothers me to see so many people whining about how the "massive spoilers" have now ruined the entire game for them and generally acting like a kid who didn't get the flavor of ice cream they wanted.

As for Susan Estrich, I'm surprised anyone can say that sort of stuff seriously. Even mentioning something like she did about how her son is good and everyone else's will turn into hardened criminals because they don't have her superior parenting is a sign that she's a bad parent and a bad person. People like her make me want to be an alien so I can at least claim I'm not part of the same species as her.

Matt

How does it reveal that though, there were two possible statements and you don't even know which one is right? Or did GTA4 advertise that it has exactly 2 possible endings? Even then you still don't know if what this person is regurgitating is true at all? I'm just not seeing how one sentence saying "I heard so and so dies in the end" can actually ruin seeing it happen and all the game play up to that point, and you've not done anything to convince me.

Maybe I'm strange, but especially in a game like this I'd hate the story if all the main characters got hero protection and lived. I enjoy the shows and games where main characters can die when things go wrong. My one brother stopped watching American movies cause he got fed up with all the hero protection crap. If anything this so-called "spoiler" has made me actually consider maybe playing this game.

You're going to have to do better than hearsay about "multiple possible deaths" to convince me that this is really a game wrecking spoiler worth all the whining I saw.

@Shadow Darkman

@Gameboy

Oh, wait. Spoiler! How could we reveal such crucial information?

[sarcasm]
Uhh… Dude? Final Fantasy VII came out YEARS ago. Who DOESN’T know that Aerith dies at the hands of Sephiroth?
[/sarcasm]

EDIT: @Matt Paprocki

Uhh... I can deal with spoilers, because the only thing it doesn't take from me is the actual experience of the event itself, so PLEASE forgive me when I say you're a f***ing pansy and you need to suck it up.

If you can't forgive me, then I say this.

No offense.

raRGH like, spoilers? you weren't freaking kidding. that may have been the most gigundus spoiler i've ever accidentally read. :(

but the point raised is correct. just because something happens in a video game doesn't necessarily mean it is endorsed.the same as with almost any creative medium. the godfather examples highlight the double standard perfectly.

it's interesting that it was pointed out that the aforementioned sequences in the game are non-interactive. who gives a crap? it seems to be the interactivity that people find so terrifying. they've found a new scapegoat (old news, i know)

think of the scene from a clockwork orange where he is forced to watch film as a type of conditioning- i'm pretty sure now there'd be a controller in there somehow. people need to chill the hell out.