GTA 5 Controversy in Australia

[Carbonox]

The trouble is that the game overly glamourises some of the things it tries to satire. The fact that there are no male prostitutes is both misogynistic and misandrystic, as it simultaneously suggests that women can be treated as sex objects but that men cannot. The fact that there is a benefit (sic) to murdering prostitutes is misogynistic, as there are no male prostitutes to murder, therefore suggesting that there is a benefit (sic) to killing some women that never applies to men.

Random speculation: Maybe there are no male prostitutes because all 3 protagonists are male and straight.

Well, except for the fact that

Spoiler: possibly a spoiler

Trevor is seen sleeping with Floyd. However, I think that alone doesn't mean he's gay or even bi, he comes across as more of a bully who sexually dominates his victims.

 

[TenEightyOne]

...all 3 protagonists are male and straight.

I don't think Trevor can be described as "straight" in a sexual sense. Whatever the reasons ("My daddy was not nice to me!" and the comment about his mother)... straight he isn't.

Do you see the thing in the spoiler? I don't recall that.

 

[Parker]

I don't think Trevor can be described as "straight" in a sexual sense. Whatever the reasons ("My daddy was not nice to me!" and the comment about his mother)... straight he isn't.

Do you see the thing in the spoiler? I don't recall that.

It is one of the random things that happens when you switch characters. A video of it, if you're curious.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It is one of the random things that happens when you switch characters. A video of it, if you're curious.

Ah, "sleeping with" has much wider connotations

But yes

 

[Imari]

The fact of the matter is that Grand Theft Auto is noted for its depiction of a highly male dominated world where women are little more than hookers to be murdered or WAGs who whinge about everything.

This seems a bit like complaining that a story set on a football team doesn't have enough female characters in deep roles. It's what was required to make that story work. I think shoehorning characters of a particular gender into a story for the sake of "balance" is worse than just having a story that naturally doesn't require many women.

The fact that there is a benefit (sic) to murdering prostitutes is misogynistic, as there are no male prostitutes to murder, therefore suggesting that there is a benefit (sic) to killing some women that never applies to men.

Is it misandrist that you're required to slaughter hundreds of men to progress the story? That the default method of conflict resolution with male antagonists is violence and death, and that the game as a whole will not reward you until you do so? Or does that not come into it?

I think you're cherry picking.

Yes, there probably should be male prostitutes. I imagine that there's not because they're not as ubiquitous as female prostitutes, so the benefit to the game from adding them in terms of creating a realistic world is relatively low.

Yes, there probably should be female gangsters. I imagine that there's not because they're not as ubiquitous as male gangsters, so the benefit to the game from adding them in terms of creating a realistic world is relatively low.

 

[Roger the Horse]

Good video on the matter here:

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Misandry is saying that boys should be tough and play active rough sports rather than sit around doing knitting and baking even though they find knitting and baking far more enjoyable. Misandry is claiming that a man can't be sexually assaulted by a woman. Misandry is claiming that all men are inherently evil perverted rapists who need to be castrated.

Misandry is the answer! Apparently ...

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-...t-make-boys-feel-bad-about-being-male/5933934

This little episode is motivated by the same cause as the GTA V petition - addressing the underlying issue of violence against women - and while the concept is probably more effective than the petition, the execution is equally flawed.

 

[Famine]

I guess in all the uproar about GTAV's treatment of named-character women being stupid or spoiled stereotypes (or, alternatively, the even worse stereotype of domineering women like Mrs. Phillips or the actually full-on feminist Denise Clinton), no-one noticed the female NPCs

There's Devin's lawyer Molly, the IAA's lead interrogator (I forget her name), Maude (Trevor's Bounty Hunting contact) and Mary-Ann the triathlete... What about Heist crew members like Taliana or Paige? What about female NPC cops and paramedics? Do they not count?


There's only two women who have to die as part of the storyline - and you don't even see or participate in the death of one. Indeed it's merely assumed that Trevor kills her (Debra) and cousin Floyd... The other is Molly, who... well you see her die, but you don't kill her.

Now, let's look at the number of men you have to kill or torture...

 

[Tornado]

Grand Theft Auto is misogynistic. If you disagree then you should ask the absolutely huge number of people who find its depiction of women offensive.

I guess "because a group of people said so" sure closes the book on that discussion.

 

[niky]

Fallout 3.

Keep her away from that floozy in the tavern. She gave me herpes.

-

Next up, Target Australia bans Fallout3 for its depiction of prostitution...

 

[Joel]

Seriously. Go to the cinema some time. They still make a lot of films with cool guys and hot girls. Some of them are terrible. Some of them are great. Nothing has changed in that regard.

I tried to spell that out as clearly as I could, using Die Hard and James Bond as examples. I was being satirical with the idea the the feminists are coming to take our video games because that clearly hasn't happened in other entertainment media.

Slow down for a minute and reevaluate your arguments and who you're arguing with. GTP isn't full of rampant misogyny and republicans. To be honest you're coming off as the liberal extreme equivalent of White and Nerdy here, with your arguments like "well lots of people think it's misogyny, therefore it is", and cherry picking arguments.

 

[Dennisch]

Good video on the matter here:

So, because some guy feels guilt, and loses his touch with reality because he now can suddenly do all the same stuff in first person mode, this game is now misogynistic?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Good video on the matter here:

While it was seen as a neat addition I don't think anyone could have anticipated the transformative effect this change in perspective would have on one of gaming's fondest franchises.

The video felt like it had an agenda from the start and a not-very-well-informed one, especially given DO'D's statement that he's played the other titles. And the music really annoyed me

 

[prisonermonkeys]

There's only two women who have to die as part of the storyline - and you don't even see or participate in the death of one. Indeed it's merely assumed that Trevor kills her (Debra) and cousin Floyd... The other is Molly, who... well you see her die, but you don't kill her.

Debra's death can reasonably be written up as self-defence - we clearly see that both she and Floyd are armed moments beforehand. As for Molly, Michael even attempts to warn her of the danger. Granted, he probably contributed to her state of panic by chasing her, but as you say, he doesn't kill her.

On the subject of the game's treatment of women, there are a few positives - Trevor is the only one who shows any concern for Tracy's well-being, knowing full well what she is going to do on "Fame or Shame", and he puts the burden of responsibility squarely on Michael's absenteeism. And it's not an isolated incident, either; he refuses to buy Jimmy beer, and while Jimmy is male, Trevor has obvious concern for them. Likewise, he chastises Wade for referring to Ashley as "a bitch", and willingly makes an enemy of Madrazo for mistreating Patricia by kidnapping her. Sure, these are tiny little things, but the build up a side of his character. I think his concern is genuine, even if his methods are corrupt.

At its heart, GTA V is a story about dishonest people living in a dishonest society. Michael boasts about his skill as a thief, but verbally abuses his son when Jimmy calls him a thief. Franklin routinely rebukes Lamar for aspiring to nothing more than life as a small-time thug, but admits to Lester that he enjoys killing. But Trevor, for all the chaos and anarchy that he represents, never tells a single lie over the course of the story. So my question in all of this is simple: if we accuse GTA V of misogyny, are we saying it is leeching off society, or is it reflecting it? Misogynistic attitudes have existed for a long time - our first female Prime Minister accused the then-opposition leader Tony Abbott of being a misogynist in the middle of parliament.

As much as it is escapism, GTA V is meant to make you feel uncomfortable at times. But is it making us feel uncomfortable because we are encouraged to do things that we wouldn't normally consider? Or is it making us feel uncomfortable because it's addressing issues that we would rather not face?

 

[Roger the Horse]

OK, I chose my words poorly. I didn't mean the whole game is misogynistic, I meant that elements of it can be interpreted as such, and that some people take offence at these elements. Personally, I see GTA as a sincere attempt to reflect the negative aspects of our society and to create discussion around them, but I still feel that in certain regards it falls short, and that in the future Rockstar may wish to up their game with regards to how they address certain sensitive issues.

The unfortunate backlash from this comes from the fact that our current culture is not one which seems to be capable of discussion. In particular there has been a worrying trend amongst those who normally one would expect to be opposed to censorship to try to have things censored because they take exception to them in some way, as is reflected by what has recently happened in Australia.

Rather than attempting to use GTA as a platform for civil discussion of serious issues, people have simply decided that they do not like what it depicts, regardless of how it is depicted (or indeed, how it attempts to depict it, regardless of the end result), and that it thus must be banned.

This is unhealthy, as it only leads to antagonism with people who may not usually be concerned with issues that the game addresses and only want to enjoy the game, blocking proper discussion from happening and instead leading to division and resentment.

So, because some guy feels guilt...this game is now misogynistic?

I didn't say that the game is misogynistic, and neither did the video. If anything I think the first person aspect makes the game less misogynistic, and perhaps clarifies the point that the game was originally trying to make. By de-objectifying the characters and creating a more subjective experience, the first person shows the violence more for what it is. Aspects of the game which may come off as sick in third person suddenly gain meaning and become commentary. You may not have a problem with watching Trevor, Franklin, or Michael kill a prostitute, but could you do such a thing through their eyes?

 

[Imari]

I didn't say that the game is misogynistic, and neither did the video. If anything I think the first person aspect makes the game less misogynistic, and perhaps clarifies the point that the game was originally trying to make. By de-objectifying the characters and creating a more subjective experience, the first person shows the violence more for what it is. Aspects of the game which may come off as sick in third person suddenly gain meaning and become commentary. You may not have a problem with watching Trevor, Franklin, or Michael kill a prostitute, but could you do such a thing through their eyes?

While it's interesting that the difference between third and first person apparently has such a profound impact on how people perceive the game, it's really neither here nor there when talking about whether the game is misogynistic or not.

It may be more disturbing to watch a murder three feet away from you than it is to watch it on the news from a helicopter cam, but it doesn't affect the fact that someone was killed and that murder is wrong.

If an argument relies on visceral impact to prove its point, it probably doesn't have many rational points to support it. Try separating your emotional reaction from what's happening and explain objectively why it's wrong.

For example, why is killing a prostitute different to killing any of the other thousands of NPCs in the game? This seems to be a focal point for the misogyny claim, so explain why a prostitute is different to everyone else in the game world.

 

[Exorcet]

I didn't say that the game is misogynistic, and neither did the video. If anything I think the first person aspect makes the game less misogynistic, and perhaps clarifies the point that the game was originally trying to make. By de-objectifying the characters and creating a more subjective experience, the first person shows the violence more for what it is. Aspects of the game which may come off as sick in third person suddenly gain meaning and become commentary. You may not have a problem with watching Trevor, Franklin, or Michael kill a prostitute, but could you do such a thing through their eyes?

I don't think the perspective makes any difference. It's still a game ultimately. While I do tend to watch my behavior in games (regardless of perspective) and avoid things like killing innocent people, it's easy enough to distinguish reality from not. I don't have a problem laughing at overly brutal murder scenes in a game because if it's in a game, it's not actually a murder.

People taking offense at GTA have their own problems that they should be focusing on instead of making the game a scapegoat. It's not real, it's not targeted at kids, and it's not trying to implant violence into society. They should educate themselves before taking action.

 

[Lucas]

Next up, Target Australia bans Fallout3 for its depiction of prostitution...

I was horribly disappointed to find sleeping with her meant literally that... 120 caps gone to waste, but luckily there are save-states.

OK, I chose my words poorly. I didn't mean the whole game is misogynistic, I meant that elements of it can be interpreted as such, and that some people take offence at these elements.

That happens in a lot of places. I remember watching a movie or a show, a black guy was sharing a table with two white guys. Then somebody gives him a coffee first, and he claims it's reverse racism: the opposite of giving him his coffee last.

In GTA V, there was never a moment where I thought: wait a second, that's insulting to women. I don't understand the logic behind "GTA tells you killing whores has its benefits". That's as true as saying "GTA tells you killing random people has its benefits", but Australia didn't bring this point up.




Also, I can't barely understand why some people would feel worse for being able to kill certain NPCs in 1st person view. If anything, I take it is because of the awesome graphics that make the ocassion much more crude.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Part of it is the nature of the medium. When we watch a film or read a book, we are a passive bystander. We bear witness to events, but we have no ability to influence them. In video games, however, we are an active participant. We consciously make decisions that have some bearing on the world with which we are interacting.

When we look at the difference between first- and third-person narration in literature, each has its own benefits and drawbacks. First-person narration is limited in its scope as the reader only follows one character, but the benefit is that we get greater insight into their thoughts and feelings. The inverse is true for the third-person, where we have the benefit of multiple perspectives, but we lose that insight into their experience. Project that onto video games, and when you are playing in the third-person, you are experiencing the world through a character - but when you play in the first-person, there is a much more direct engagement and interaction with the world. It stops being the character's experience and starts being your own. A perfect example of this can be seen in FAR CRY 4, which was absolutely brilliant in its execution:

Spoiler

While you are playing the game, the game is playing you and you get manipulated into being the villain.

Throughout the game, you are repeatedly told that Pagan Min, the king of Kyrat, is a brutal despot. But you only really hear it from The Golden Path, a rebel faction Min brands as terrorists, and The Golden Path's leaders freely manipulate you - Amita implores you to save a religious site from Min's men, but shows no hesitation in destroying another site that is inconvenient. Sabal, on the other hand, constantly makes a connection to the player's father who founded The Golden Path, but contradictory evidence emerges suggesting that he wasn't as righteous as first thought. As you take a more active role in The Golden Path, the two actively undermine one another in front of you, and you end up killing hundreds - if not thousands - of soldiers to get to Min when arguably Amita and Sabal are worse than Min himself. The game presents no physical evidence that Min is evil or The Golden Path righteous, except for the say-so of characters who are shown to be compromised.

Ultimately, the best ending can be achieved in fifteen minutes. In the first mission, Min tells you to "wait right here". You have the opportunity to explore the building you are in, but if you stay put, Min returns and you complete the task you set out to do. But if you follow the objective marker (which you are never told to do), you inevitably join the insurgency and civil war reigns over Kyrat.

 

[Imari]

Also, I can't barely understand why some people would feel worse for being able to kill certain NPCs in 1st person view. If anything, I take it is because of the awesome graphics that make the ocassion much more crude.

No, there's just a far lower barrier to people internalising the actions as their own. It's still through a TV and a gamepad, but where third person might be like watching a play, first person is a lot more like acting in a play. In first person, you know it's not you but you're that much closer to the action, which can be uncomfortable.

Just as people might be OK with watching a play with a rape scene, but they might be uncomfortable actually playing a part in that rape scene. At some level you're behaving as a rapist, and that's jarring if you're not an actual rapist.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I think that's an extreme example to use. MGS GROUND ZEROES implied that someone had been raped (and even then, you needed to find two obscure and easily-missed tape recordings to catch the conversation), and that drew a massive backlash.

 

[Imari]

I think that's an extreme example to use. MGS GROUND ZEROES implied that someone had been raped (and even then, you needed to find two obscure and easily-missed tape recordings to catch the conversation), and that drew a massive backlash.

It's an extreme example to make it easier to visualise, but it works for anything. Do you feel more like a shopkeeper when you're watching a play with a shopkeeper in it, or when you're playing a shopkeeper?

People are uncomfortable with first person in GTA because they're performing the same actions that they normally would, but they're unused to dealing with the level of personal involvement. It'll wear off, just like it wore off for shooters. Nobody thinks twice about mowing down hordes of Viet Cong, and in six months no one will think twice about stabbing a prostitute in the face.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It's an extreme example to make it easier to visualise, but it works for anything. Do you feel more like a shopkeeper when you're watching a play with a shopkeeper in it, or when you're playing a shopkeeper?

That's an interesting point; in GTA I feel no more involved in 1st person than in 3rd... in fact I swap between the two (I can't get the hang of 1st person fire-from-cover yet), either way it's still "me"/"my character".

Do you feel a difference in involvement between FPV/TPV?

People are uncomfortable with first person in GTA because they're performing the same actions that they normally would, but they're unused to dealing with the level of personal involvement. It'll wear off, just like it wore off for shooters. Nobody thinks twice about mowing down hordes of Viet Cong, and in six months no one will think twice about stabbing a prostitute in the face.

I agree. In the past I recall various "omg scandals" in the press, most notably the game (Call of Duty?) where the player had the option of eradicating an airport lounge full of civilians. I don't recall first-person-view being a factor in the opposition. FPV development in GTA has just given various groups a chance to come back at GTA for a second time, I think.

At the root of it all is "do we trust adults to censor themselves"? Clearly it's a sad world if we don't. If what they're really saying is "I don't want my children to see this" then that ball is in the complainant's court.

 

[kennylmao]

http://www.news.com.au/technology/h...tack-on-the-game/story-e6frfrt9-1227145911622

They've got enough signatures, ban the Bible!
https://www.change.org/p/target-wit...ders-to-commit-sexual-violence-and-kill-women

 

[Lucas]

Just as people might be OK with watching a play with a rape scene, but they might be uncomfortable actually playing a part in that rape scene. At some level you're behaving as a rapist, and that's jarring if you're not an actual rapist.

I would understand that if it wasn't because you are still playing a part in murder, like it or not, when you kill somebody in 3rd person. I didn't enjoy the torture scene because I wasn't given the option "🤬 this 🤬" and kill Haines, technically it was me carrying out the game's orders. In free roam, I like the ability to do as I please. Generally I like hitting people, but just because it's fun hearing them scream. In the storymode, I find it a bit harder as characters have fleshed out personalities.

Once again, I don't understand how everyone suddenly question their own actions (actions you can choose) in a game just because of 1st person.

 

[Dotini]

...you are still playing a part in murder, like it or not, when you kill somebody in 3rd person.

I don't play GTA or any 1st person shooters. But I do play the old-fashioned Age of Empires II, the Conquerors. If you don't recall, it is a game of civilization building, but also giant battles involving knights, archers, trebuchets and castles. There is a population cap, and sometimes you need, or are tempted, to delete villagers (who build) to make room for military units which fight. Whenever a unit is killed in battle or deleted, he/she utters some cry like "oh!", "ooh!" or "ouch!". So my question is, when I delete a villager in this game, am I playing a part in murder, even if only symbolically, when I delete the villager?

 

[Lucas]

I don't play GTA or any 1st person shooters. But I do play the old-fashioned Age of Empires II, the Conquerors. If you don't recall, it is a game of civilization building, but also giant battles involving knights, archers, trebuchets and castles. There is a population cap, and sometimes you need, or are tempted, to delete villagers (who build) to make room for military units which fight. Whenever a unit is killed in battle or deleted, he/she utters some cry like "oh!", "ooh!" or "ouch!". So my question is, when I delete a villager in this game, am I playing a part in murder, even if only symbolically, when I delete the villager?

It doesn't make much sense, really. I currently play Fallout 3, and I have played GTA V a lot. According to AoE, you are killing them (why would they cry otherwise), but it doesn't really make sense (why not just kick them out of town?). I would personally see it as a game mechanic for a more immersive world instead of just literally deleting them (erasing them from existence from a gameplay point of view) by actually killing them and getting rid of them.

But like I said, it's a game mechanic clothed as murder. I would hardly feel bad about it, compared to GTA, where you are killing persons for money like it already is happening in real life, and not to "make space" for battle units.

GTA V and F3, by comparison, can be played for the most part killing only those who deserve it because they are hostile. In Age of Empires, it appears, it's a necessity to kill your own "characters".

That reminds me of a game called Populous, and if I remember correctly, you didn't kill your population, you just gave them "jobs" to make for warriors and such.

 

[Imari]

That's an interesting point; in GTA I feel no more involved in 1st person than in 3rd... in fact I swap between the two (I can't get the hang of 1st person fire-from-cover yet), either way it's still "me"/"my character".

Do you feel a difference in involvement between FPV/TPV?

Haven't played it in first person, but I seriously doubt it. First person gives me motion sickness. If anything, I tend to feel more disconnected from first person games than third person ones.

Once again, I don't understand how everyone suddenly question their own actions (actions you can choose) in a game just because of 1st person.

EVERYONE doesn't.

Some people do, and I'm simply trying to provide some insight into why. They're performing the same gameplay actions that they normally would, but from a position that provides them with a different emotional response.

 

[Lucas]

EVERYONE doesn't.

My bad, I knew that, but sometimes I rewrite my posts before posting them and that includes changing the whole of it.

Some people do, and I'm simply trying to provide some insight into why. They're performing the same gameplay actions that they normally would, but from a position that provides them with a different emotional response.

I know what you said, but I don't get the logic behind it. They are killing people either way, but more importantly, they are virtual people. I never cared about killing an NPC other than those who give you goodies afterwards. At least they should feel a pinch bad for killing a random pedestrian in 3rd person.

 

[IneedSchool]

I suppose the only way that Take-Two and Rockstar games can satisfy these feminists is making their protagonists all women, all of the prostitutes are men, there is an ability to castrate men, and that women are paid much more than men (By like a 500:1 ratio). I bet the sales would be enormously successful, not because it is a Grand Theft Auto game, but because this type of game would attract the same demographic that loved Fifty Shades of Grey.

I guess Rockstar's excuse for the strange society would be that Vice City changed a lot since the 80's.