Sega's Yakuza series has often been likened to Grand Theft Auto, since both games involve gangland dirty work in the big city. Despite the similarities between the two games, however, franchise designer Toshihiro Nagoshi seems quite unimpressed with Rockstar's legendary series, referring to it predominantly as a game in which you "kill people or do whatever."
"I thought one day someone is going to have to make something like this," he explains. "Personally, because I think you must think about the influence games have on people, I would never think about wanting to make a game like this. However, because of this moral issues in this game, I think we should have a healthy debate.
"In gaming, if you make a decision, there is a reaction, and it's the most stimulating form of media, I think. And thus, it can asked if it's the most dangerous media... Depending on what you make, perhaps."
It seems almost to me like Nagoshi is tempted to climb aboard the "videogames can turn people into killers" train that FOX news and The Daily Mail love to ride so much. I'm not entirely sure there is some big moral debate worth having here. It would be like me trying to debate the existence of Santa Claus or God or whatever. If you don't believe the problem's there, and all evidence points to you being correct, what debate can you really have?
I just think the very point of arguing about the mental impact of GTA is beneath me, and any other sensible person. There is no mental impact to debate, outside of people who are already emotionally screwed up, and those guys gave way more important problems to deal with than games.
Contest:
8:00 AM on 10.19.2009
| 
Not in GTA, honestly. You can have your main character go on a murderous rampage every 30 seconds, or have them cause only just enough carnage to get their job done, and it doesn't affect anything. You can shoot your partner right in the head as soon as a mission starts, and the only repercussion is that you have to start the mission over. I mean, this is a game where dying has less of a consequence than going to jail.
Why would a child be playing these games? That's a different matter entirely, and I don't think the "kids can view these games" argument as valid. If a kid's playing a game like GTA, that's up to the parent to deal with.
And tbh, children are violent without the aid of videogames. We're a violent species. I don't think the impact of media is half as grave as people make it out to be.
By playing violent games / watching violent films / listening to agressive music violence and aggression become slightly more "normal" or "acceptable" to you.
But people in Germany and some others need to realise that this is not down to one form of media, and that it doesn't just "make" people violent killers, in fact it often is a good outlet for those with aggressive tendancies. These people are that way to begin with, there are people out there like that, they didn't need games to make them killers, they just needed to be pushed, shunned, insulted by their peers and made to feel the need for vengeance, coupled with the natural aggression / lack of respect for life they had anyway made them what they are, not the fuckin games they used to pass the time.
Gamers know fullwell that they're not taking a life when they shoot a digital person, shooting someone for real is a whole differnet ball game. it's not the act of shooting someone that we avoid, it's the act of taking a life / seriously injuring people. - Hell if we could shoot each other in real life and just respawn I would have a riot blasting away my mates!
Now the real argument is "are games more influential than other media like Music, TV, and Films?"
But yeah, somebody's got to keep this level of entertainment out of the hands of our youngsters. That's just asking for trouble in 2030.
I mean, outside of video games, but otherwise, shit, I've helped spiders outside of my house, and I have a phobia of them.
Then again, I might be an exception.
Good to see hypocrisy is alive and well in the video game industry.
Violent games are just a convenient whipping boy in %99 of cases. Some games imo do deserve criticism for their unnecessary over the top disturbing themes like Manhunt and Rapelay. But not GTA.
"Violent games are just a convenient whipping boy in %99 of cases. Some games imo do deserve criticism for their unnecessary over the top disturbing themes like Manhunt and Rapelay. But not GTA."
It's preferable that we don't get into "Drawing Lines". If you get to say "Yeah, Rapelay and Manhunt should be condemned, but GTA is okay", what's to prevent someone else from saying going further and saying GTA should be condemned? And then God of War, and then Call of Duty, until we get to a point where even jumping on goombas is a hell-worthy trespass.
Fix'd
I doubt there is an argument in his statement about whether GTA should be allowed in society, just an argument about the good and bad of this moral disconnect in gaming.
Shape up, Jim, that's no way for a thinking person to be.
I argue this shit all the time, but if people can't look at the wealth of evidence that supports the idea that videogames have no more negative impact on someone than any other form of entertainment, then I'm pretty much through trying to discuss it with them on a sensible, intellectual level. They are beyond the reach of sane discussion.
Fix'd"
Fixed for inaccuracy? Honestly, that doesn't even make sense. If he's jealous of GTA's sales, then we WOULDN'T he want to make a GTA like game to appeal to a larger audience (and thus sell more copies), unless he actually just prefers to make the kind of games he likes to make.
Please, if you're going to "fix" something, fix it. Don't break it and make it make even less sense in a cheap attempt to be clever or humorous.
You're the one that proclaimed that you had already made your mind up. Don't disregard the possibility of new evidence being unearthed.
I'm not saying video games are inherently bad, but being too rigid about it smacks of religious thinking.
But by that logic a person can never make up their mind. You could say gravity might not exist because you can't disregard the possibility of new evidence being unearthed.
Also can you explain the second half of that statement "
I'm not saying video games are inherently bad, but being too rigid about it smacks of religious thinking.".
I don't think it means what you think it means.
Seems like you were the first person to actually grasp what was being said in the article, and I completely agree.
Sounds more like how he was talking about how the violence in GTA has absolutely no consequences, even if you die or get arrested you just get let out with some money and weapons lost. While in Yakuza there's more of an impact based on what you do (though how much of one I don't exactly know yet, still working my way through number 1)
Make up your mind all you like, but realize that things can change, and if/when they do, don't hold onto your old beliefs in spite of new evidence.
Really though, I'm speaking up because I get nervous whenever anyone says that debate is a pointless or bad thing. Debate and reasoned thinking about this stuff if what makes this site and its community exceptional.
I'll let you all know if he grows up to be a serial killer, though I think the chances are awfully slim.
Tiffany Jewelry Key Chain
Tiffany Jewelry Bracelets
Tiffany Jewelry Pendants
Tiffany Jewelry Cufflinks
Tiffany Jewelry Earrings
Tiffany Jewelry Rings
Tiffany Jewelry Sets