Ex-soldier puts his girlfriends 8 year old kid into coma for accidently deleting his GTA save file.

[Thyunda]

I blame the videogame, not the traumatic and life altering events that can come with being a soldier.

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

This is the same newspaper that published a tirade against 'Grand Theft Auto: Raoul Moat'.

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.

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'.

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.

No they wouldn't. Don't talk crap. It's a journalist's duty to include as much information as possible. Leaving the reader wondering 'which game' isn't going to help, and more importantly, it's Grand Theft frickin' Auto! That's like their ultimate scapegoat. They couldn't pass that one up.

And the people might resemble real people, but only so much as a picture of a dog resembles a real dog. The people of GTA have no personality, no feelings. You're essentially shooting moving straw dolls.

 

[squid5580]

I blame the videogame, not the traumatic and life altering events that can come with being a soldier.

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

This is the same newspaper that published a tirade against 'Grand Theft Auto: Raoul Moat'.

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.

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'.

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.

No they wouldn't. Don't talk crap. It's a journalist's duty to include as much information as possible. Leaving the reader wondering 'which game' isn't going to help, and more importantly, it's Grand Theft frickin' Auto! That's like their ultimate scapegoat. They couldn't pass that one up.

And the people might resemble real people, but only so much as a picture of a dog resembles a real dog. The people of GTA have no personality, no feelings. You're essentially shooting moving straw dolls.

So a picture of a dog doesn't resemble of a real dog? Let me guess it resembles a cat right?

And I guess since Jack Thompson and every other anti gaming crusader using GTA as it's whipping boy is the reason it didn't sell millions of copies?

 

[SinisterGehe]

I hope the bandwagon doesn't pick up on this one...

Don't worry, I am sure FOX has hired some specialist already.

People who have issue, there will always be people who go berserk from different things. Take a toy out of the hands of a child, he will go angry. Take the bottle off from a drunk, he will become upset, take the cake of a obese man he will get angry. There will always be these people and they are minority. But these people are often used to reflect the group they are part of.

The fact that there is common factor in different cases doesn't mean that they are part of the case. If people say that violent video games made him do the horrific act he did, I say it was hes military training, we all are just as right and wrong. If some teens go violent and reporters say they all played Video games, I say they all also drank water, that means from my aspect the common factor of violence is water and everyone will be just as right and wrong. Everything affects everything.

This was a horrific act, but no one should blame the Video game, play the person who did the act. There are 3 factors in any act: Motivation -> Tool -> Act. He could have controlled himself but he didn't, he needs help.

Many users of alcohol, get in to fights while under the influence, does this mean everyone who drinks gets in to fights? And everyone who fights also drinks? So if we ban alcohol does all fights suddenly vanish? (We all know what happened in different countries when governments tried that) Answer is: NO!

Help the people who have issues, resolve the issues don't just remove the motivation, cause or the tool. Help the person who is being influenced to resolve hes issues.

 

[Thyunda]

I blame the videogame, not the traumatic and life altering events that can come with being a soldier.

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

This is the same newspaper that published a tirade against 'Grand Theft Auto: Raoul Moat'.

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.

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'.

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.

No they wouldn't. Don't talk crap. It's a journalist's duty to include as much information as possible. Leaving the reader wondering 'which game' isn't going to help, and more importantly, it's Grand Theft frickin' Auto! That's like their ultimate scapegoat. They couldn't pass that one up.

And the people might resemble real people, but only so much as a picture of a dog resembles a real dog. The people of GTA have no personality, no feelings. You're essentially shooting moving straw dolls.

So a picture of a dog doesn't resemble of a real dog? Let me guess it resembles a cat right?

And I guess since Jack Thompson and every other anti gaming crusader using GTA as it's whipping boy is the reason it didn't sell millions of copies?

You're bordering on the lines of either stupidity or trolling now. A picture of a dog merely looks like a dog. And that's all it does. It does not act like a dog. It does not smell like a dog. It doesn't feel like a dog. It's not a dog.

GTA sold millions of copies because, to be frank, it is a damn fine game and everybody knew GTA's track record, and how the newest one would naturally be amazing. You might also notice that the sort of people who bought GTAIV are the sort of people who don't take anti-gaming crusaders seriously.

Let me make this really simple for you.


THE DAILY MAIL IS NOT TRYING TO SELL YOU GRAND THEFT AUTO.

 

[Racecarlock]

I'm starting to wonder if all of these recent murder over game stories are being made up to sway politicians or something. I feel sorry for the dead children or parents if these aren't made up, but I think they'll use this as anti-game ammo and try to get them reclassified as video drugs or something and ban them like marijuana.

Also, poor kid.

 

[squid5580]

I blame the videogame, not the traumatic and life altering events that can come with being a soldier.

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

This is the same newspaper that published a tirade against 'Grand Theft Auto: Raoul Moat'.

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.

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'.

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.

No they wouldn't. Don't talk crap. It's a journalist's duty to include as much information as possible. Leaving the reader wondering 'which game' isn't going to help, and more importantly, it's Grand Theft frickin' Auto! That's like their ultimate scapegoat. They couldn't pass that one up.

And the people might resemble real people, but only so much as a picture of a dog resembles a real dog. The people of GTA have no personality, no feelings. You're essentially shooting moving straw dolls.

So a picture of a dog doesn't resemble of a real dog? Let me guess it resembles a cat right?

And I guess since Jack Thompson and every other anti gaming crusader using GTA as it's whipping boy is the reason it didn't sell millions of copies?

You're bordering on the lines of either stupidity or trolling now. A picture of a dog merely looks like a dog. And that's all it does. It does not act like a dog. It does not smell like a dog. It doesn't feel like a dog. It's not a dog.

GTA sold millions of copies because, to be frank, it is a damn fine game and everybody knew GTA's track record, and how the newest one would naturally be amazing. You might also notice that the sort of people who bought GTAIV are the sort of people who don't take anti-gaming crusaders seriously.

Let me make this really simple for you.


THE DAILY MAIL IS NOT TRYING TO SELL YOU GRAND THEFT AUTO.

Let me simplify this for you. It doesn't matter what their intentions are. It doesn't matter what they intended to do when they made GTA sound appealing. Bottom line is that is what they did for some simply by saying what they did the way they did it. Just like the Dead Space "your mom will hate this" trailer. It is a shame you just can't wrap your head around the irony of it.

 

[Thyunda]

I blame the videogame, not the traumatic and life altering events that can come with being a soldier.

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

This is the same newspaper that published a tirade against 'Grand Theft Auto: Raoul Moat'.

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.

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'.

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.

No they wouldn't. Don't talk crap. It's a journalist's duty to include as much information as possible. Leaving the reader wondering 'which game' isn't going to help, and more importantly, it's Grand Theft frickin' Auto! That's like their ultimate scapegoat. They couldn't pass that one up.

And the people might resemble real people, but only so much as a picture of a dog resembles a real dog. The people of GTA have no personality, no feelings. You're essentially shooting moving straw dolls.

So a picture of a dog doesn't resemble of a real dog? Let me guess it resembles a cat right?

And I guess since Jack Thompson and every other anti gaming crusader using GTA as it's whipping boy is the reason it didn't sell millions of copies?

You're bordering on the lines of either stupidity or trolling now. A picture of a dog merely looks like a dog. And that's all it does. It does not act like a dog. It does not smell like a dog. It doesn't feel like a dog. It's not a dog.

GTA sold millions of copies because, to be frank, it is a damn fine game and everybody knew GTA's track record, and how the newest one would naturally be amazing. You might also notice that the sort of people who bought GTAIV are the sort of people who don't take anti-gaming crusaders seriously.

Let me make this really simple for you.


THE DAILY MAIL IS NOT TRYING TO SELL YOU GRAND THEFT AUTO.

Let me simplify this for you. It doesn't matter what their intentions are. It doesn't matter what they intended to do when they made GTA sound appealing. Bottom line is that is what they did for some simply by saying what they did the way they did it. Just like the Dead Space "your mom will hate this" trailer. It is a shame you just can't wrap your head around the irony of it.

Alright, now you're just being an idiot. Plain and simple. I said it was irrelevant for them to put the 'ultra violent' part into their article. It was clearly a dig at violent games being the cause of all evils again.
It was not an ironic statement on anybody's part. You said that it was fully relevant and that they were trying to move more copies. You never once said it was ironic that they would have that effect.

 

[squid5580]

I blame the videogame, not the traumatic and life altering events that can come with being a soldier.

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

This is the same newspaper that published a tirade against 'Grand Theft Auto: Raoul Moat'.

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.

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'.

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.

No they wouldn't. Don't talk crap. It's a journalist's duty to include as much information as possible. Leaving the reader wondering 'which game' isn't going to help, and more importantly, it's Grand Theft frickin' Auto! That's like their ultimate scapegoat. They couldn't pass that one up.

And the people might resemble real people, but only so much as a picture of a dog resembles a real dog. The people of GTA have no personality, no feelings. You're essentially shooting moving straw dolls.

So a picture of a dog doesn't resemble of a real dog? Let me guess it resembles a cat right?

And I guess since Jack Thompson and every other anti gaming crusader using GTA as it's whipping boy is the reason it didn't sell millions of copies?

You're bordering on the lines of either stupidity or trolling now. A picture of a dog merely looks like a dog. And that's all it does. It does not act like a dog. It does not smell like a dog. It doesn't feel like a dog. It's not a dog.

GTA sold millions of copies because, to be frank, it is a damn fine game and everybody knew GTA's track record, and how the newest one would naturally be amazing. You might also notice that the sort of people who bought GTAIV are the sort of people who don't take anti-gaming crusaders seriously.

Let me make this really simple for you.


THE DAILY MAIL IS NOT TRYING TO SELL YOU GRAND THEFT AUTO.

Let me simplify this for you. It doesn't matter what their intentions are. It doesn't matter what they intended to do when they made GTA sound appealing. Bottom line is that is what they did for some simply by saying what they did the way they did it. Just like the Dead Space "your mom will hate this" trailer. It is a shame you just can't wrap your head around the irony of it.

Alright, now you're just being an idiot. Plain and simple. I said it was irrelevant for them to put the 'ultra violent' part into their article. It was clearly a dig at violent games being the cause of all evils again.
It was not an ironic statement on anybody's part. You said that it was fully relevant and that they were trying to move more copies. You never once said it was ironic that they would have that effect.

Sorry I didn't realize I had to draw a picture for you. Or you mistook the one I did for resembling irony which wouldn't be irony.

 

[Thyunda]

I blame the videogame, not the traumatic and life altering events that can come with being a soldier.

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

This is the same newspaper that published a tirade against 'Grand Theft Auto: Raoul Moat'.

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.

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'.

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.

No they wouldn't. Don't talk crap. It's a journalist's duty to include as much information as possible. Leaving the reader wondering 'which game' isn't going to help, and more importantly, it's Grand Theft frickin' Auto! That's like their ultimate scapegoat. They couldn't pass that one up.

And the people might resemble real people, but only so much as a picture of a dog resembles a real dog. The people of GTA have no personality, no feelings. You're essentially shooting moving straw dolls.

So a picture of a dog doesn't resemble of a real dog? Let me guess it resembles a cat right?

And I guess since Jack Thompson and every other anti gaming crusader using GTA as it's whipping boy is the reason it didn't sell millions of copies?

You're bordering on the lines of either stupidity or trolling now. A picture of a dog merely looks like a dog. And that's all it does. It does not act like a dog. It does not smell like a dog. It doesn't feel like a dog. It's not a dog.

GTA sold millions of copies because, to be frank, it is a damn fine game and everybody knew GTA's track record, and how the newest one would naturally be amazing. You might also notice that the sort of people who bought GTAIV are the sort of people who don't take anti-gaming crusaders seriously.

Let me make this really simple for you.


THE DAILY MAIL IS NOT TRYING TO SELL YOU GRAND THEFT AUTO.

Let me simplify this for you. It doesn't matter what their intentions are. It doesn't matter what they intended to do when they made GTA sound appealing. Bottom line is that is what they did for some simply by saying what they did the way they did it. Just like the Dead Space "your mom will hate this" trailer. It is a shame you just can't wrap your head around the irony of it.

Alright, now you're just being an idiot. Plain and simple. I said it was irrelevant for them to put the 'ultra violent' part into their article. It was clearly a dig at violent games being the cause of all evils again.
It was not an ironic statement on anybody's part. You said that it was fully relevant and that they were trying to move more copies. You never once said it was ironic that they would have that effect.

Sorry I didn't realize I had to draw a picture for you. Or you mistook the one I did for resembling irony which wouldn't be irony.

You did not make an ironic statement. You made an idiotic one. Now you're trying to cover your bare and obviously unclean arse by pretending you were being clever and satirical. You've failed miserably.

 

[Banana Cannon]

The people who will officially criticise games as a result of this guy's madness instead of the career of killing and warmongering are most likely fat american mothers who are too preoccupied with smothering their own children or controlling them. WE should fear nothing from them, because if the best they could do about something is complain about it in a misinformed opinion on Fox News instead of actually donating towards helping that kid out or towards improving the mental health facilities of their country, then they really are the kind of idiots worth leaving to die in a disaster situation. And you can take that to the bank!

 

[alrekr]

Immediately after seeing "Daily Mail" I'm a little sceptical.
But I'm a poncy Guardian reader, what do I know about this kind of thing?

Long live the tea drinking readers of the Gurdian.

And I am also a bit unsure of the quality of the article as its a Daily Mail one.

 

[Octorok]

Hes an ex-soldier, are you surprised he's violent?!

Don't do that. There are at least several ex-soldiers that I know who aren't savage, violent creatures who snap over a trivial irritation and irreparably harm the 8-year-old responsible.

There's no evidence of PTSD, either. People brought up that maybe it was his life as a soldier that "damaged" him, but he just seems... well, like a lunatic. People with difficulties after serving are very rarely the kind of person who would stomp on an eight-year-old for a videogame accident.

That sounds more like he was a crazy man, who might have snapped over anything.

EDIT

The people who will officially criticise games as a result of this guy's madness instead of the career of killing and warmongering

And another one! Stop blaming the goddamn military for this one guy who went off the deep end!

And really, REALLY, don't say that a single soldier among thousands is a "warmonger" and nor is serving in your country's military a "career of killing". If everybody on combat duty killed an enemy soldier, we'd be out of Afghanistan in a week.

EDIT 2.0 -

He was a soldier, case closed. They are trained to murder people, this doesnt exactly make a stable human... especially when you think of the amount of people joining for that very reason. Turns out war isnt a very nice thing to be a part of. Sucks if anyone tries to twist this to be a problem with gaming instead of the rather obvious reason.

I will continue quoting these ludicrous posts as I find 'em. This pisses me the fuck off, "case closed", I mean My God! Please read facts posted above my own post about mental stability in the army, and while I'm not saying war is "nice", being a soldier doesn't train you to murder anyone.

You are trained how to be a soldier and, yes, kill an enemy. With a weapon, at range, who's trying to kill you etc.

This guy didn't shoot the boy, he flew into a rage and beat him into a coma with fists and feet. The army tends to discourage stomping on the enemy.

 

[squid5580]

I blame the videogame, not the traumatic and life altering events that can come with being a soldier.

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

This is the same newspaper that published a tirade against 'Grand Theft Auto: Raoul Moat'.

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.

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'.

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.

No they wouldn't. Don't talk crap. It's a journalist's duty to include as much information as possible. Leaving the reader wondering 'which game' isn't going to help, and more importantly, it's Grand Theft frickin' Auto! That's like their ultimate scapegoat. They couldn't pass that one up.

And the people might resemble real people, but only so much as a picture of a dog resembles a real dog. The people of GTA have no personality, no feelings. You're essentially shooting moving straw dolls.

So a picture of a dog doesn't resemble of a real dog? Let me guess it resembles a cat right?

And I guess since Jack Thompson and every other anti gaming crusader using GTA as it's whipping boy is the reason it didn't sell millions of copies?

You're bordering on the lines of either stupidity or trolling now. A picture of a dog merely looks like a dog. And that's all it does. It does not act like a dog. It does not smell like a dog. It doesn't feel like a dog. It's not a dog.

GTA sold millions of copies because, to be frank, it is a damn fine game and everybody knew GTA's track record, and how the newest one would naturally be amazing. You might also notice that the sort of people who bought GTAIV are the sort of people who don't take anti-gaming crusaders seriously.

Let me make this really simple for you.


THE DAILY MAIL IS NOT TRYING TO SELL YOU GRAND THEFT AUTO.

Let me simplify this for you. It doesn't matter what their intentions are. It doesn't matter what they intended to do when they made GTA sound appealing. Bottom line is that is what they did for some simply by saying what they did the way they did it. Just like the Dead Space "your mom will hate this" trailer. It is a shame you just can't wrap your head around the irony of it.

Alright, now you're just being an idiot. Plain and simple. I said it was irrelevant for them to put the 'ultra violent' part into their article. It was clearly a dig at violent games being the cause of all evils again.
It was not an ironic statement on anybody's part. You said that it was fully relevant and that they were trying to move more copies. You never once said it was ironic that they would have that effect.

Sorry I didn't realize I had to draw a picture for you. Or you mistook the one I did for resembling irony which wouldn't be irony.

You did not make an ironic statement. You made an idiotic one. Now you're trying to cover your bare and obviously unclean arse by pretending you were being clever and satirical. You've failed miserably.

Oh hey since you already beat me and I didn't get to ask this but do you speak for everyone who works there or just the one reporter? I mean since you in your infinite wisdom seem to know exactly what their intentions were and all.

And the only thing I failed at was typing it out slower so you could understand the first time.

 

[alrekr]

Hes an ex-soldier, are you surprised he's violent?!

Don't do that. There are at least several ex-soldiers that I know who aren't savage, violent creatures who snap over a trivial irritation and irreparably harm the 8-year-old responsible.

There's no evidence of PTSD, either. People brought up that maybe it was his life as a soldier that "damaged" him, but he just seems... well, like a lunatic. People with difficulties after serving are very rarely the kind of person who would stomp on an eight-year-old for a videogame accident.

That sounds more like he was a crazy man, who might have snapped over anything.

No offense to the armed services but they have a habit of appealing to the more moraly challenged members of society. Its to be expected as its one of the few professions where you legaly kill people. So the fact that a crazy man was in the military at some point isn't to surprising.

 

[Thyunda]

I blame the videogame, not the traumatic and life altering events that can come with being a soldier.

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

This is the same newspaper that published a tirade against 'Grand Theft Auto: Raoul Moat'.

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.

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'.

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.

No they wouldn't. Don't talk crap. It's a journalist's duty to include as much information as possible. Leaving the reader wondering 'which game' isn't going to help, and more importantly, it's Grand Theft frickin' Auto! That's like their ultimate scapegoat. They couldn't pass that one up.

And the people might resemble real people, but only so much as a picture of a dog resembles a real dog. The people of GTA have no personality, no feelings. You're essentially shooting moving straw dolls.

So a picture of a dog doesn't resemble of a real dog? Let me guess it resembles a cat right?

And I guess since Jack Thompson and every other anti gaming crusader using GTA as it's whipping boy is the reason it didn't sell millions of copies?

You're bordering on the lines of either stupidity or trolling now. A picture of a dog merely looks like a dog. And that's all it does. It does not act like a dog. It does not smell like a dog. It doesn't feel like a dog. It's not a dog.

GTA sold millions of copies because, to be frank, it is a damn fine game and everybody knew GTA's track record, and how the newest one would naturally be amazing. You might also notice that the sort of people who bought GTAIV are the sort of people who don't take anti-gaming crusaders seriously.

Let me make this really simple for you.


THE DAILY MAIL IS NOT TRYING TO SELL YOU GRAND THEFT AUTO.

Let me simplify this for you. It doesn't matter what their intentions are. It doesn't matter what they intended to do when they made GTA sound appealing. Bottom line is that is what they did for some simply by saying what they did the way they did it. Just like the Dead Space "your mom will hate this" trailer. It is a shame you just can't wrap your head around the irony of it.

Alright, now you're just being an idiot. Plain and simple. I said it was irrelevant for them to put the 'ultra violent' part into their article. It was clearly a dig at violent games being the cause of all evils again.
It was not an ironic statement on anybody's part. You said that it was fully relevant and that they were trying to move more copies. You never once said it was ironic that they would have that effect.

Sorry I didn't realize I had to draw a picture for you. Or you mistook the one I did for resembling irony which wouldn't be irony.

You did not make an ironic statement. You made an idiotic one. Now you're trying to cover your bare and obviously unclean arse by pretending you were being clever and satirical. You've failed miserably.

Oh hey since you already beat me and I didn't get to ask this but do you speak for everyone who works there or just the one reporter? I mean since you in your infinite wisdom seem to know exactly what their intentions were and all.

And the only thing I failed at was typing it out slower so you could understand the first time.

The Daily Mail doesn't hire pro-video game reporters. Okay? Just like it doesn't hire anybody who doesn't bring up Princess Diana as often as possible, or someone who doesn't blame England's economy on the European Union.

I understood perfectly well the first time. You were looking for an argument. And you lost.

 

[Xanian]

I think people need to look up other versions of the article. There are plenty that are expunged of these other things like his being a soldier or his stupid choice in video games.

Having worked with people with PTSD...I can say this guy has some OTHER issues. There might be co-morbidity...but more likely he's a very abusive boyfriend and father. Maybe he had a shitty childhood, maybe he did have a bad time in the war...none of those things made him put a kid in a coma for several weeks, hospitalize him for four months, blame and bully his other children into corroborating his loosely threaded stories, nor did they make him stomp the kid near to death.

He's done something monstrous to a child that has significantly reduced his quality of life. While I wouldn't have him drawn and quartered...I'm not going to get weepy about the mitigating circumstances. He's a man who made a choice. And his choice was to nearly beat to death his girlfriends son and then lie about it. They had to wait until the child awoke from his coma to get the story straight.

 

[squid5580]

I blame the videogame, not the traumatic and life altering events that can come with being a soldier.

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

This is the same newspaper that published a tirade against 'Grand Theft Auto: Raoul Moat'.

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.

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'.

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.

No they wouldn't. Don't talk crap. It's a journalist's duty to include as much information as possible. Leaving the reader wondering 'which game' isn't going to help, and more importantly, it's Grand Theft frickin' Auto! That's like their ultimate scapegoat. They couldn't pass that one up.

And the people might resemble real people, but only so much as a picture of a dog resembles a real dog. The people of GTA have no personality, no feelings. You're essentially shooting moving straw dolls.

So a picture of a dog doesn't resemble of a real dog? Let me guess it resembles a cat right?

And I guess since Jack Thompson and every other anti gaming crusader using GTA as it's whipping boy is the reason it didn't sell millions of copies?

You're bordering on the lines of either stupidity or trolling now. A picture of a dog merely looks like a dog. And that's all it does. It does not act like a dog. It does not smell like a dog. It doesn't feel like a dog. It's not a dog.

GTA sold millions of copies because, to be frank, it is a damn fine game and everybody knew GTA's track record, and how the newest one would naturally be amazing. You might also notice that the sort of people who bought GTAIV are the sort of people who don't take anti-gaming crusaders seriously.

Let me make this really simple for you.


THE DAILY MAIL IS NOT TRYING TO SELL YOU GRAND THEFT AUTO.

Let me simplify this for you. It doesn't matter what their intentions are. It doesn't matter what they intended to do when they made GTA sound appealing. Bottom line is that is what they did for some simply by saying what they did the way they did it. Just like the Dead Space "your mom will hate this" trailer. It is a shame you just can't wrap your head around the irony of it.

Alright, now you're just being an idiot. Plain and simple. I said it was irrelevant for them to put the 'ultra violent' part into their article. It was clearly a dig at violent games being the cause of all evils again.
It was not an ironic statement on anybody's part. You said that it was fully relevant and that they were trying to move more copies. You never once said it was ironic that they would have that effect.

Sorry I didn't realize I had to draw a picture for you. Or you mistook the one I did for resembling irony which wouldn't be irony.

You did not make an ironic statement. You made an idiotic one. Now you're trying to cover your bare and obviously unclean arse by pretending you were being clever and satirical. You've failed miserably.

Oh hey since you already beat me and I didn't get to ask this but do you speak for everyone who works there or just the one reporter? I mean since you in your infinite wisdom seem to know exactly what their intentions were and all.

And the only thing I failed at was typing it out slower so you could understand the first time.

The Daily Mail doesn't hire pro-video game reporters. Okay? Just like it doesn't hire anybody who doesn't bring up Princess Diana as often as possible, or someone who doesn't blame England's economy on the European Union.

I understood perfectly well the first time. You were looking for an argument. And you lost.

Did I? So you have proven that that article is so anti gaming? Really? I think you might wanna go back and read through the entire thread again. Just because they used the word "ultra" which is the only thing they really did wrong does not make it some piece of anti gaming trash article. Oh right I forgot you know everything about every employee there. My bad. I am sure they do extensive background checks and have spy cameras in every employees home to make sure they aren't doing a bit of gaming in their free time.

Been fun. Thanks for the laughs. You can believe you won if that is what will help you sleep tonight. Afterall I can't compete with your astounding logic. You know living here in the real world and all.

 

[Thyunda]

I blame the videogame, not the traumatic and life altering events that can come with being a soldier.

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

This is the same newspaper that published a tirade against 'Grand Theft Auto: Raoul Moat'.

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.

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'.

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.

No they wouldn't. Don't talk crap. It's a journalist's duty to include as much information as possible. Leaving the reader wondering 'which game' isn't going to help, and more importantly, it's Grand Theft frickin' Auto! That's like their ultimate scapegoat. They couldn't pass that one up.

And the people might resemble real people, but only so much as a picture of a dog resembles a real dog. The people of GTA have no personality, no feelings. You're essentially shooting moving straw dolls.

So a picture of a dog doesn't resemble of a real dog? Let me guess it resembles a cat right?

And I guess since Jack Thompson and every other anti gaming crusader using GTA as it's whipping boy is the reason it didn't sell millions of copies?

You're bordering on the lines of either stupidity or trolling now. A picture of a dog merely looks like a dog. And that's all it does. It does not act like a dog. It does not smell like a dog. It doesn't feel like a dog. It's not a dog.

GTA sold millions of copies because, to be frank, it is a damn fine game and everybody knew GTA's track record, and how the newest one would naturally be amazing. You might also notice that the sort of people who bought GTAIV are the sort of people who don't take anti-gaming crusaders seriously.

Let me make this really simple for you.


THE DAILY MAIL IS NOT TRYING TO SELL YOU GRAND THEFT AUTO.

Let me simplify this for you. It doesn't matter what their intentions are. It doesn't matter what they intended to do when they made GTA sound appealing. Bottom line is that is what they did for some simply by saying what they did the way they did it. Just like the Dead Space "your mom will hate this" trailer. It is a shame you just can't wrap your head around the irony of it.

Alright, now you're just being an idiot. Plain and simple. I said it was irrelevant for them to put the 'ultra violent' part into their article. It was clearly a dig at violent games being the cause of all evils again.
It was not an ironic statement on anybody's part. You said that it was fully relevant and that they were trying to move more copies. You never once said it was ironic that they would have that effect.

Sorry I didn't realize I had to draw a picture for you. Or you mistook the one I did for resembling irony which wouldn't be irony.

You did not make an ironic statement. You made an idiotic one. Now you're trying to cover your bare and obviously unclean arse by pretending you were being clever and satirical. You've failed miserably.

Oh hey since you already beat me and I didn't get to ask this but do you speak for everyone who works there or just the one reporter? I mean since you in your infinite wisdom seem to know exactly what their intentions were and all.

And the only thing I failed at was typing it out slower so you could understand the first time.

The Daily Mail doesn't hire pro-video game reporters. Okay? Just like it doesn't hire anybody who doesn't bring up Princess Diana as often as possible, or someone who doesn't blame England's economy on the European Union.

I understood perfectly well the first time. You were looking for an argument. And you lost.

Did I? So you have proven that that article is so anti gaming? Really? I think you might wanna go back and read through the entire thread again. Just because they used the word "ultra" which is the only thing they really did wrong does not make it some piece of anti gaming trash article. Oh right I forgot you know everything about every employee there. My bad. I am sure they do extensive background checks and have spy cameras in every employees home to make sure they aren't doing a bit of gaming in their free time.

Been fun. Thanks for the laughs. You can believe you won if that is what will help you sleep tonight. Afterall I can't compete with your astounding logic. You know living here in the real world and all.

Alright, now you're getting on my nerves. Let me lay this one out for you.

THE ONLY REASON A NEWSPAPER TELLS YOU A GAME IS VIOLENT IS IF IT INTENDS TO INCLUDE THE GAME IN THE CAUSES OF THE PROBLEM. GTA'S GENRE IS NOT 'ULTRA-VIOLENT'.
The article may not be an outright assault against gaming, but the stab is definitely there. The reason they wrote 'ultra-violent' is so people would pick up on it and say "Well, there's the problem. Violent game made man violent." If they had written "Grand Theft Auto, a sandbox game about an immigrant trying to make his way in America", THAT would be promoting the game. But the essence of their writing states "The game is ultra violent. That's all it is. It's bad."

Shouting "Have you met the reporters" does you no justice whatsoever. Journalists and editors KNOW how to write. Okay? There are very rarely misinterpretations in a newspaper. They can't afford to make mistakes. If they did not mean to have a go at violent games, they would not have brought up the violence. That is why it's irrelevant. My logic is flawless. I've done journalist work myself. I know full well how to write an article to provoke a response. The response they were aiming for was "game exploits mentally unstable veteran." If you can't pick up on subtle hints like that...then you deserve to be reading the Daily Mail.

 

[Vault boy Eddie]

Why can't the dude just be fucked in the head? Being a soldier doesn't automatically mean he was in endless firefights picking up his best friend's giblets. For all we know he went into the military with fucknuttyness in tow, not every soldier goes in as a upstanding citizen.