Blogging the experience of gameplayhttps://www.gamelog.cl/gamers/GamerPage.php?idgamer=1335https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4437My third time around I traveled to the library where I was confronted by a police voice. In order to end the game I had to end my life. That is a pretty depressing way to win a game. But that is the object of all games, the ability to win. Regardless of what you are playing, your main goal is to advance through the levels and eventually defeat anything that stands in your way. After 15 years of intense gaming, I feel like the behavior has become instinctive to me. It does not matter what game I play, if the object is to advance I am going to do anything and everything in my power to do so. With that in mind, I tried to play this game as ethically as possible while trying to advance in the game. By avoiding confrontation I was able to escape from murdering many helpless students. However, in order to advance in to the library I needed to kill the janitor. Now is this unethical? If my goal is to advance, I must kill X to get to Z. Every game has an X character that gets in the way of advancing to Y. Just because the content of the game is based off of a very uncomfortable event, does not mean the game itself should be subjected to higher moral standards. After playing this game a few times the shock factor has began to wear off. Without the emotional dissonance felt with this game, you begin to see that it is just like any other game. In order to get Y I must defeat X, unfortunately in this game X happened to be a helpless old janitor.Wed, 27 Oct 2010 18:07:08 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4437&iddiary=8337https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4437After roaming around for a while I finally got where I needed to be. I loaded up my guns and started my rampage. Wow, this game is ridiculous. I started killing everyone in sight. They all were different stereotypes and after they died I was rewarded points. Although it began to seem repetitive, there were a few interesting aspects of the game that I noticed. After entering a male bathroom on the second floor, I murdered a group of jocks/preppy kids that was bullying a smaller kid. After the executions, I was rewarded health packs and a thank you from the kid. I was surprised that the game creator would do such a thing. In the real world, someone may want to inflict pain on another who is bullying them, but I doubt they would want them to actually die. Although the game is pretty outspoken, little things like this really push it past my moral compass. In my past journal entry, I asked if there was a difference in media production. Why does the game get such a worse reputation than the books or media? Although it has the same content as these books or movies, I think this game has an unethical framework based on its reward system. In the books and movies you are simply witnessing third hand what happened; rather in the game you play the character itself. The parameter of what you can and cannot do in this game is the true reason why it is so unethical. For example, if I run into someone on my rampage, I have to shoot them. If there is confrontation the only way out of it is to kill them. Not only are you forced to kill them, but you get rewarded for doing so. After playing the game for a while, the reward system conditions you to feel good about killing. Any game that produces a positive effect of killing a stranger should be at all time immoral.Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:01:22 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4437&iddiary=8284https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4437I play 1st person shooter games all the time. I have no issue playing a US soldier shooting whatever enemy stands in my way. In this game however, I felt uneasy the entire time playing. I think it was a combination of playing the enemy as well as listening to his side of the story that made it so controversial. Although it seemed to be a glorified pacman, the issue I had with it was being the character. If I did not know the story before or read through the storyline of the game, I would not be emotionally connected to the scenario. On a rational standpoint however, it justifies unethical behavior. In order to advance in the game, you must plant the bombs in the cafeteria in order to move on. Since people play games to win, they are forced in this unethical behavior. After playing the game I briefly read a comment involving the difference between the game and other media covering the incident. I thought it was a good point to make by asking the question of what the difference was between a movie and the game. The only answer I could come up would be the ability to play the character. Even though the movie may be more graphic and lifelike, because the game allows you to play the character, it is deemed more unethical. I found this hard to believe and will continue to question it through my other gamelogs.Mon, 25 Oct 2010 19:55:36 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4437&iddiary=8261https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4378After failing multiple times at the campaign mode by either being blown up or arrested, I decided to abort the mission. As I wondered the streets of San Andreas aimlessly, I began punching anyone in my way. After a while they would fall to the ground, bleed and money would eventually come out of their pockets. If I was lucky I would also obtain some sort of gun or weapon. The moral issue I had with this scenario is that I was being rewarded for these actions. The more innocent people I murdered, the more money and weapons I would receive. After being tired of punching, I found it much more efficient to run people over rather than to punch them to death. The more people I destroyed the more heavily I would be rewarded. If I destroyed too many characters or one happened to be a police officer, than I would become a police target. Although this game may try to create a consequence for immoral actions by being arrested, it is not truly represented. In my game, I was able to destroy at least a dozen people before any police officers became suspicious. If I happened to go to Jail, my mission would just start over and my hands would be washed clean. If a video game wants to be truly ethical, they need to create a consequence that is permanently damaging and will make a true impact on the player.Tue, 05 Oct 2010 12:01:29 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4378&iddiary=8193https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4378As I begin to get more in depth with this game (San Andreas), I continue to see the outrageous objectives I have to fulfill. After getting a tattoo, haircut and pizza, I continue on my mission of spray painting public property and getting in fights with rival gang members. During my objective however, I managed to steal a few cars, run over a dozen victims and destroy thousands of dollars of public property. Unfortunately I failed the mission because I was arrested and did not have enough money to bribe my way through the corrupt law system. I believe the most unethical part about this game is my inability to choose as a player. I have to gain “street credit” and respect by finishing the mission of illegal activities. If I do not, I simply wonder the streets without any progress. After being arrested the first time, I would have the foresight to see my illegal street path may not be the most efficient route in life. Instead I may try to obtain a job or go to school. Unfortunately the game does not reward you for obeying the law. In order to play the game you have to continue doing illegal acts that force you into an unethical lifestyle.Mon, 04 Oct 2010 14:35:28 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4378&iddiary=8164https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4378I am about 95 percent sure Samuel l Jackson plays the cop in the opening scene of GTA: San Andreas. Why? I guess he may have some real finance issues to sink that low, but that is beside the point. San Andreas’ is a game that trumps all others on moral and ethical grounds. Although it has a bad reputation with the mother’s of America, I believe the game is so “out there” that it doesn’t affect the majority of player’s behavior directly. A 16 year old kid may think it may be fun to play “gangster” in the safety of his own home, but through him in an underdeveloped urban setting and let’s see how he does. I think the biggest moral dilemma with the game really has to do with stereotypes in inner cities. We as a culture are being brainwashed by these stereotypes based off of video games and movies. Of course in this game the cops are corrupt, drive by shooting are common and racial slurs are mandatory in every other sentence. Stereotypes like these are the really the issue at hand. No one is shooting up schools because they saw it on a video game; however, these games may help formulate an opinion. If a kid is unfamiliar with a certain culture or group of people he will label them with what he knows. If his knowledge comes from movies and video games, these stereotypes can be very impactful.Sat, 02 Oct 2010 20:35:52 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=4378&iddiary=8153