GTA V - Amnesty condemns torture scene

[Flatfrog]

An interesting article here about a mandatory torture scene in GTA V:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/18/grand-theft-auto-5-under-fire-for-graphic-torture-scene

What do you think? I have to say I'm with Amnesty here (apart from the obligatory 'children may see it' nonsense - seriously, why don't they get called out about that? You wouldn't let your 5-year old watch Scarface). I think it's pretty bad to not only put the player in the position of a torturing protagonist, but also to imply that information obtained under torture is reliable.

I stopped watching 24 after it started getting ridiculously torture-happy, and this pretty much decides me on not getting GTA V (not that I was particularly bothered in the first place, I've never enjoyed them much despite the amazing world-building)

 

[Lord Kloo]

I kind of agree with Amnesty, on the one hand torture is disgusting and horrible and probably not at all necessary (though that's a story for another thread)..

However, I haven't actually seen the torture scene in the game but I'm betting its not just the same as 24 or Zero Dark Thirty's love and appreciation of torture as the key method to protecting 'Merica and the West. From the article it doesn't sound like it glamorizes torture at all, I know I hated Dishonored when I had to constantly electrocute a guy just to get his safe code, and I can't imagine anyone other than the already sadistic enjoy this extreme example of gameplay.

Then again it seems that V has gone a bit too far in several regards and torture is always a controversial topic, but at least, in my view, the game doesn't show it in a 'good' light.

Also the stuff about 'think of the children' is complete jack, kids could watch their parents watching scary or violent movies and nobody cares about that shit.

 

[EternallyBored]

Well damn this is a hell of a coincidence, I literally just finished that mission and turned the game off for the night, and then I come here and see this.

Yeah that mission is all kinds of fucked up, and pretty easily beats the chasing down a guy with a chainsaw mission from vice city, as one of the most screwed up things a player has to do in the GTA series. Amnesty kind of has the right of it, the mission is probably one of the most brutal depictions of torture to ever be featured in a video game, at least mainstream games anyway.

I think the whole mission was supposed to be an indictment against torture though, in the end the info you get is highly suspect and pretty much unequivocally plays both the government and the player off as total scumbags who did everything for either unethical or just plain psychopathic reasons. The scene itself is visceral, but I got the idea the game was telling me that I was an amoral douchebag for doing it.

 

[Flatfrog]

I think the whole mission was supposed to be an indictment against torture though, in the end the info you get is highly suspect and pretty much unequivocally plays both the government and the player off as total scumbags who did everything for either unethical or just plain psychopathic reasons. The scene itself is visceral, but I got the idea the game was telling me that I was an amoral douchebag for doing it.

That's interesting and it brings us back to Greg's review. This is where games as a medium can do something movies can't. If you're watching a torture scene, you can close your eyes and wait for it to be over. But if you're the protagonist, you can't. You have to experience it, become uncomfortable, maybe even hate yourself. It's potentially a very powerful moment. But as always, context is everything.

I haven't played the game, and I suspect neither have the people from Amnesty. And while I do worry about the snobbishness of this kind of attitude, I can't help thinking that there are plenty of people who will play that scene and love every second of it, and I worry that it contributes to the normalising of torture as an intelligence-gathering option.


("But what about people less stable and middle-class than me?" )

 

[Elijin]

What? The entire mission, the other characters are questioning how shaky the info is.

And then after, there's a little rant about how great and effective torture is by the crazy character which is so openly satirical and conveying to the (paying attention, thinking) player that its useless, that I feel like Amnesty are just making fun of us by suggesting otherwise.

 

[EternallyBored]

I think the whole mission was supposed to be an indictment against torture though, in the end the info you get is highly suspect and pretty much unequivocally plays both the government and the player off as total scumbags who did everything for either unethical or just plain psychopathic reasons. The scene itself is visceral, but I got the idea the game was telling me that I was an amoral douchebag for doing it.

That's interesting and it brings us back to Greg's review. This is where games as a medium can do something movies can't. If you're watching a torture scene, you can close your eyes and wait for it to be over. But if you're the protagonist, you can't. You have to experience it, become uncomfortable, maybe even hate yourself. It's potentially a very powerful moment. But as always, context is everything.

I haven't played the game, and I suspect neither have the people from Amnesty. And while I do worry about the snobbishness of this kind of attitude, I can't help thinking that there are plenty of people who will play that scene and love every second of it, and I worry that it contributes to the normalising of torture as an intelligence-gathering option.


("But what about people less stable and middle-class than me?" )

Your pretty much right on that scene requires quite a bit of participation here it is in its entirety from my view anyway.

Spoiler

So you play as both Trevor and Michael in this mission, Trevor is helping the FBI standin agency interrogate an American citizen who knows something about an Azerbaijan in Los Santos that might be planning something. This is right after the mission where you rescue this guy from being tortured by the CIA knockoff agency (killing a crapton of CIA agents in the process) and he thinks the FBI is going to protect him. The scene basically sets up that you get to choose what method to use to get him to talk, but he is already willing to talk and keeps mentioning that he'll tell you everything, the FBI agent in the room just gets impatient and tells trevor to torture him first anyway. One instrument is the classic waterboarding technique, and Trevor even makes a snarky comment about how it's not torture right before he does it while laughing like a loon. The next instrument is a pair of pliers where you hold the trigger button to put them in his mouth, then rotate the thumbstick to pull one of his teeth out. The third instrument is a pipe wrench you use to break his kneecaps. The fourth is a car battery where you alternate between shocking him and sparking the ends to intimidate him. Each round of torture requires you not go too fast or his heart stops and you give him an adrenaline shot to revive him. While Trevor is doing his thing, Michael is sitting on the hill across from a house with a sniper rifle looking for the target based on descriptions the victim gives. In the end, all you get is a description of, "middle eastern with a beard and smokes with his left hand". Find the person that matches that description and shoot them, not exactly a thorough investigation. The prisoner gets realeased at the end and the FBI agent tells Trevor to kill him, Trevor instead takes him to the airport to escape the country, even though the prisoner is an American citizen and spends most of the ride over trying to convince Trevor to take him back to his family. The mission ends with the victim stumbling down a flight of stairs as he tried to drag his bleeding body inside the airport. Trevor also spends the ride to the airport talking about how torture for information is bad and it should be torture because you enjoy it.

 

[Corven]

I think the whole mission was supposed to be an indictment against torture though, in the end the info you get is highly suspect and pretty much unequivocally plays both the government and the player off as total scumbags who did everything for either unethical or just plain psychopathic reasons. The scene itself is visceral, but I got the idea the game was telling me that I was an amoral douchebag for doing it.

That's interesting and it brings us back to Greg's review. This is where games as a medium can do something movies can't. If you're watching a torture scene, you can close your eyes and wait for it to be over. But if you're the protagonist, you can't. You have to experience it, become uncomfortable, maybe even hate yourself. It's potentially a very powerful moment. But as always, context is everything.

I haven't played the game, and I suspect neither have the people from Amnesty. And while I do worry about the snobbishness of this kind of attitude, I can't help thinking that there are plenty of people who will play that scene and love every second of it, and I worry that it contributes to the normalising of torture as an intelligence-gathering option.


("But what about people less stable and middle-class than me?" )

I don't think there is anyone out there who will enjoy the torture section at all unless they are complete sociopaths, there is no humor, there is no sarcasm or gags, it's played completely straight.

You shock, waterboard, pull teeth, and break the guys leg with a big ass wrench just to get info that he would have given you of his own free will. It is a thoroughly unpleasant segment that cannot be skipped or rushed through.

I don't think it tries to normalize torture or make it seems okay, in fact I think the entire scene is a giant condemnation of the practice of torture as a means to gather intelligence, since after the segment is done the character Trevor (who tortured the guy under orders) helps the guy escape to the airport, and tells him to get out of the country and become an advocate against torture.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

For those who haven't played the game but want context:

Spoiler: Context for torture missions

The mission takes place in a storyline where the protagonists have to help the FIB extract an informant from the IAA (CIA) because the FIB feels that they are being shortchanged. In the two missions leading up to the torture you are basically told outright that the prisoner is an innocent man who's been abducted by the IAA because he's Azerbaijani and works with electronics (as a stereo/home movie installer).

During the torture sequence it is made amply clear that the prisoner is ready to talk if the interrogator would just ask any proper questions and that it is an overzealous FIB agent and a sadistic protagonist that tortures him anyway. He eventually gives you the information you need and you shoot a guy with the other protagonist in the mission. After the torture mission the news on the radio will inform you that the police and community are baffled why anyone would shoot the target that was singled out under torture (and was singled out as "that guy I installed a stereo system for") since he was a known philanthropist and pillar of the community.

Essentially, the entire mission chain is a big take that at both the US intelligence agencies rivalry, their confirmation bias in singling out people of specific ethnicities and the unreliable methods of getting "information" that they use. The torture scene is visceral and I found it pretty disturbing, which I think was the entire point of it.

As a final note: during the entire torture the victim has a huge crucifix around his neck, as if to further drive home just how misguided the entire thing is.

 

[Lictor Face]

What? The entire mission, the other characters are questioning how shaky the info is.

And then after, there's a little rant about how great and effective torture is by the crazy character which is so openly satirical and conveying to the (paying attention, thinking) player that its useless, that I feel like Amnesty are just making fun of us by suggesting otherwise.

Mind you. Regardless of the age rating. There will be children playing GTA V anyway.

And while I am not one of those radical puritan zealots who think video games are the spawn of satan blah blah. Having a graphical, unskippable torture scene, performed by the player character no less , is not something I think anyone wants their kids watching ( I'd steer mine away until its over and let him continue ). Hell, I'm pretty sure some adults won't be able to stomach it either.

There is nothing "satirical" about the whole thing. Borderlands 2 had heavily implied torture in MANY of its segments ( Flynt's torture doll. OH GOD WHY. WHHHYYYY ), there are two reasons why no one called Gearbox out.

1. It was not depicted. At all. The guy could have been tickled with a feather duster for all we know. GTA V did the exact opposite.

2. Borderlands 2 is set in a hilariously over the top and unbelievable world. GTA V is set in a very realistic setting ( Los Santos could be any generic metropolis in the world ).

There is reasonable video game infractions, and then there are unreasonable video game infractions. This is a former.

 

[carnex]

This is really nothing new. Remember Manhunt? Yep, same thing. People will always be uncomfortable with this kind of depictions. And they are going to react this way. Art or not people have feelings and they feel that they have right not to feel offended or they think that people will identify with in game character.

Fact is, creators have to weather the storm. It's a part of creating controversial works.Their teenage star sex tape mission proves that they can flick the finger to the media outrage. Keep up the good work Rockstar.

 

[carnex]

Keep up the good work Rockstar.

So, "let's put all the worst things ever so this game becomes controversial and therefore POPULAR" is a good work?

I'd rather play Postal.

It's not for everybody, that's for sure. I probably won't play GTA V either (didn't enjoy any GTA game since Vice City) But just flipping the bird to mass media and "think of the children" crowd outrage is good enough for me to cheer them on. At least on that account.

Is it "good work"? I didn't play the game so I can't comment on that therefore I didn't touch that subject. I'm just giving them some credit based on their past games with Bully and Red Dead Redemption standing out and what i have read about that part, it perfectly fits characters.

-SNIP-

Thank you for description. Now that mission makes perfect sense.

 

[Zhukov]

It's fiction. Bad things are allowed to happen in fiction. Fiction is allowed to misrepresent reality.

I haven't seen the scene, so I don't know if it can be said to glorify or approve of torture, but that's hard to prove at the best of times. There's always someone ready to say, "Oh, it's ironic", (remember Far Cry 3?) then the argument just bogs down into semantics and meaninglessness.

As for protecting the kids from... oh fuck it, not even going to bother. It's an adult rated game. Join the bloody dots.

This is the same argument we've seen a hundred times. Although it's worth noting that here they specifically mention that they are merely expressing disapproval, not calling for censorship or the like.

 

[mad825]

Rockstar North.

Trolling the media and the sense of morality since 1997. This game isn't for kids, I hope you guys figured that out.

 

[Lieju]

That's interesting and it brings us back to Greg's review. This is where games as a medium can do something movies can't. If you're watching a torture scene, you can close your eyes and wait for it to be over. But if you're the protagonist, you can't. You have to experience it, become uncomfortable, maybe even hate yourself. It's potentially a very powerful moment. But as always, context is everything.

But that's the thing, though.
If the torture is a mandatory part of the mission, it kinda becomes this thing the game does, instead of what you do because you choose to.

I haven't played the mission, so I don't know how avoidable it is and how you end up in the situation, but it seems to me a better way would be to put you in a situation where you choose to do it(because it seems like the best idea/unavoidable/cool/etc), and then have to live with the consequences.

 

[Storm Dragon]

I know I hated Dishonored when I had to constantly electrocute a guy just to get his safe code

To be fair, he was, quite literally, asking for it. At least, at first.

 

[Bertylicious]

Really, when you think about it, it'd be better if all media was replaced with reality television that was narrated by Mister Rogers. Nobody would ever get offended, people would love it and we'd all receive wholesome, spiritual nurishment.

EDIT: Also why the hell are Amnesty even releasing a statement on this? Surely their place is helping victims, not moralising on media releases.

 

[GoaThief]

When I get to it I'll give my full opinion.

I believe Amnesty are way off base here, do they pass comment on every film or TV show that depicts a similar level of violence? If not it screams of "them videya games" corrupting youth bullshit. The child slant is just ridiculous.

 

[Something Amyss]

You wouldn't let your 5-year old watch Scarface

And yet, since people will let their kids play GTA V, it's relevant.