If that is what they want then they wouldn't be marketing it pure and simple. They would have maybe said a ultra violent game. Or a game made by Rockstar. Instead they called it by name which is free advertising. And our definitions of "ultra violent" differ apparently. I would call GTA far more violent than a game like Bulletstorm or Gears of war. Even though the brutality may be on a far higher scale the things you are using it against do no resemble real people.Thyunda said:Evidently you missed the point of me mentioning that, thus demonstrating further your inability to pick up on this sort of thing. I pointed that out because you said the Daily Mail might be trying to get more copies of GTAIV sold. That is exactly the opposite of what they want. I'm not one for saying "Bill said this, but he's a dick so he must have meant this", but the tone implied by the article said the whole thing. And I hate the phrase 'ultra-violent'. GTA is not 'ultra-violent'. It's violent. But you're limited in what you can actually do to people...the violence extends to 'you can either kill them or partially kill them'.squid5580 said:Well if I didn't you know check the facts and believed that a game like that was coming out I would be offended as well. Just because a game about any subject matter can be made doesn't always mean it should. Or did you miss the part where they said we never bothered to do our jobs and check anything and just assumed this was in development? They could have said yeah we hate video games and looked stupid and lost credibility in front of a small minority (Faux News has no problem doing this). Instead they lost credibility to the vast majority by telling them we didn't bother doing our job and fact check before reporting.Thyunda said:This is the same newspaper that published a tirade against 'Grand Theft Auto: Raoul Moat'.squid5580 said:Maybe they are trying to move more copies of GTA. When I hear a game or movie is ultra violent it peaks my interest more.Thyunda said:Well, it IS irrelevant. Yes, the game is violent. It's also sold in a plastic case. Shall we mention that, next time? If they'd have put "...accidentally deleted his profile which was seven hours into the game's story line", they'd have been slated for advocating his behaviour. So that would be relevant, because it helps us tell just how seriously he took it, and how it affected his reaction.squid5580 said:Why is it irrelevant? It is what it is. Once gamers can stop being ashamed about it we will probably have an easier go against real enemies like that rapist ***** or the lawmakers that want to censor it.Thyunda said:Why was it relevant that GTA was 'ultra-violent'? It might as well have said "Donadio, who wears glasses". Sure, it's a fact. But it adds absolutely nothing to the report. The intent of its inclusion is obvious, there is no way you can misinterpret that. Plus, it IS the Daily Mail. I can say in complete honesty that the only reason they put he was an ex-soldier in there is so they have something to fall back on if they upset anyone.squid5580 said:Did you bother to read the article? It stated the facts. GTA is a ultra-violent game. The kid deleted his account that lead to the attack. No where does it blame anything, just states the events as they occurred. This hypersensitivity is just as ridiculous as the other side's.MiracleOfSound said:I blame the videogame, not the traumatic and life altering events that can come with being a soldier.
It's journalism. Every word they use is specifically designed to provoke a response. Nobody's ashamed that the game's violent, I just can't understand why they felt it necessary to point out that it's violent. The only reason they would do that is to tell everyone that the game was violent, therefore the violent reaction was caused by the game's content.
I was thinking the same thing, honestly. Not only that, but they had to call GTA an 'ultra-violent video game' in the article, didn't they?binvjoh said:PTSD?
Didn't read the article but that's the impression I get from the "ex-soldier" part.
haha, too rightMiracleOfSound said:I blame the videogame, not the traumatic and life altering events that can come with being a soldier.
If he gets 75 years, he's not gonna have much ass left...Aphex Demon said:I wonder what the actual father of this kid is gonna do? Hopefully beat this guys ass.
No need to lump the entire Escapist into one group because of one post, my good man.Diamondback One said:Sometimes I dislike the Escapist for being so ignorant in the views of the military, instead of seeing how our world is much more different and yet at the same time similar to civilian life. You just need to understand us one day, before judging.
I think that there is, really. You see, not only does it hammer home the severity of it all, it also stops it being solely about gaming. In the UK (where this article is printed), soldier are being treated as next to holy at the moment, for all of the wrong reasons, and so it's good to bring a little realism back to the world. Like you said, they're just humanDiamondback One said:There was NO reason to put ex-soldier in the article, as being a soldier does not always "mess someone up." A lot of people are just plain jackasses either way, soldier or not.
He's joking about the fact when a major news site sees this they'll have a field day blaming GTA.squid5580 said:Snip
PTSD?The Code said:I was thinking the same thing, honestly. Not only that, but they had to call GTA an 'ultra-violent video game' in the article, didn't they?binvjoh said:PTSD?
Didn't read the article but that's the impression I get from the "ex-soldier" part.
At least it only took the jury a half hour to give the guy 75 years behind bars. Let the son of a ***** rot.
Going out on a limb, but that was probably a heavy dose of sarcasm. Enjoy.squid5580 said:Did you bother to read the article? It stated the facts. GTA is a ultra-violent game. The kid deleted his account that lead to the attack. No where does it blame anything, just states the events as they occurred. This hypersensitivity is just as ridiculous as the other side's.MiracleOfSound said:I blame the videogame, not the traumatic and life altering events that can come with being a soldier.
PTSD is the acronym for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. It's a mental condition contracted from events that cause immense amounts of mental distress, such as being violently raped, going through war, etc. Enduring such things can and usually does change a person's outlook and personality for the worse, inducing hallucinations, mood swings, and other symptoms. A few things may be off in my description of it, so I recommend getting a better answer from a more reputable source.imnotparanoid said:PTSD?The Code said:I was thinking the same thing, honestly. Not only that, but they had to call GTA an 'ultra-violent video game' in the article, didn't they?binvjoh said:PTSD?
Didn't read the article but that's the impression I get from the "ex-soldier" part.
At least it only took the jury a half hour to give the guy 75 years behind bars. Let the son of a ***** rot.
Is that where soilders come back really like violent or something [small]I fail at this sort of stuff[/small]
Oh I know that,I just didnt work it out from the acronam (sp)The Code said:PTSD is the acronym for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. It's a mental condition contracted from events that cause immense amounts of mental distress, such as being violently raped, going through war, etc. Enduring such things can and usually does change a person's outlook and personality for the worse, inducing hallucinations, mood swings, and other symptoms. A few things may be off in my description of it, so I recommend getting a better answer from a more reputable source.imnotparanoid said:PTSD?The Code said:I was thinking the same thing, honestly. Not only that, but they had to call GTA an 'ultra-violent video game' in the article, didn't they?binvjoh said:PTSD?
Didn't read the article but that's the impression I get from the "ex-soldier" part.
At least it only took the jury a half hour to give the guy 75 years behind bars. Let the son of a ***** rot.
Is that where soilders come back really like violent or something [small]I fail at this sort of stuff[/small]
tl;dr - It means he's got a screw loose from people shooting at him.
Well no, for just the same reason you stated. If it were different it would be foxnews.iLikeHippos said:Does anyone else find it strikingly odd that the newspaper show no sympathy for any of them?
I know newspapers aren't supposed to be subjective and only fill in details & information, but God damn doesn't this deserve at least ONE tear? (And any other tragic event for that matter?)
No? Oh fuck it than...