Comments | gamepolitics: British Police & Politicians Condemn Reservoir Dogs Game

gamepolitics

British Police & Politicians Condemn Reservoir Dogs Game

Jul 28, 2006 08:12

( Read more... )

new zealand, australia, torture, 25 to life, police, tom mcghie, reservoir dogs, law enforcement, acpo, eidos, protests, phil willis, keith vaz, hitman: blood money, bill hastings

Comments 58

aresef July 28 2006, 14:01:32 UTC

You don't see these hypocrites trying to pull copies of the movie off store shelves, do you?

Ahh, the lovely sound of hypocracy yukimurasanada July 28 2006, 14:05:18 UTC

Gee, doesn't anyone else see this as somewhat ironic. Resovior dogs, when it came out, was viewed as an edgy, violent, brilliant movie, and is one of the reasons that Q.T is so well regarded around the world. Because unlike others, he dares to challange the rules and the morals and the beliefs of what others think is to much. Take kill bill, perhaps the bloodist and move violent movie in recent years, and yet it was a massive success both critically and finacially ( ... )

anticron July 28 2006, 14:16:20 UTC

After the police comply, they can be disarmed, or killed in whichever manner the player chooses."

The problem they have is that players are given a choice. Ponder how ridiculous that is for a moment.

We're still a bit unclear on the specifics of the violence in Reservoir Dogs, but harming hostages?

Do you have a problem with movies (or other media) doing the same or similar?

semperar July 28 2006, 17:39:50 UTC

Authority figures are inherently paranoid about the security of their authority. It is the nature of all establishments to think that they are the binding force of society and that social contract never existed.

It is with that paranoia that they AWLWAYS assume the worst about human beings.

Thus, the average politician literally thinks that jail time is the ONLY thing that keeps ANY human, from little Billy to grandma Betty from murdering another. Were there not clear and obvious punishments, even old ladies would be murderous looters.

Any medium that presents the illusion that there aren't consequences for these behaviors is creating a direct threat to them.

This is how career politicians view human beings. End of story.

they carry them big guns, but they wear them big vests ds_chun July 29 2006, 05:06:57 UTC

now i'm a longtime gamer with a library holding everything from digdug to liberty city stories and political nut with an extremely liberal sentiment. so i do agree with you. kinda ( ... )

Re: they carry them big guns, but they wear them big vests semperar July 29 2006, 18:15:40 UTC

Whoa whoa whoa. Law ENFORCEMENT was not my issue at all. Law enforcement is a position than CAN be abused, of course, but it is not the answer-to-no-one egofest that lawmaking itself is.

Politics is a dangerous and wholly unregulated weapon. People in the position to CREATE laws to be enforced act on self-preserving paranoia.

Go back ten years to Ice-T. When actual charges were brought up against him and his music, it wasn't just the fact that his song was offensive to Police (which it easily was.) He was accused of SEDITION and INCITING OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT. Honest-to-God sedition for a bloody rap song ( ... )

Thread 5

I'm a little confused... philoetus July 28 2006, 14:24:34 UTC

I'm confused GP, are you saying it is more morally acceptable to kill the person rather than take them hostage. Given the two options the hostage route seems win-win, I mean the hostage gets to live (and probably a lucrative movie-of-the-week deal) and the hostage taker gets a bargaining chip.

P.S.
Not advocating hostage taking here, it just seems like it being more taboo than murder seems a little foolish.

Re: I'm a little confused... gamepolitics July 28 2006, 15:53:17 UTC

my opinion - harming or killing hostages is problematic for Eidos - and by extension - the video game industry.

Re: I'm a little confused... bustermanzero July 28 2006, 22:31:54 UTC

Indeed. It goes well beyond simply killing civilians on the sidewalk like you could do in games like GTA and Way of the Samurai. We're talking about a person who's bound up, captured, helpless. Then you kill them or subject them to further pain, mostly for enjoyment. Somewhat disturbing, no?

Re: I'm a little confused... sigma_7 July 29 2006, 11:34:39 UTC

We're talking about a person who's bound up, captured, helpless. Then you kill them or subject them to further pain, mostly for enjoyment. Somewhat disturbing, no?

It may be disturbing in the short term - however, it is one simple fix to discourage excessive killing or harming hostages (without having the police shoot through the hostages). I don't have the details, but this is exactly what will be done as modern game developers feel that "free crimes" would be an abuse of the game system. Remember that this concept is not original.

GTA 3 used a previously defined concept to solve that issue - the "criminal" variable as demonstrated by Elite. If you commit enough crimes, police become increasingly aggressive - eventually deploying the SWAT, Military, and the National Guard.

I shall have to disagree imperialcreed July 28 2006, 14:25:46 UTC

"We're still a bit unclear on the specifics of the violence in Reservoir Dogs, but harming hostages? That equals torture in GP's mind, and that's a line we really wish Eidos hadn't crossed. Inevitably, the rest of the video game industry will pay the price for game content such as this ( ... )