Please sign in or sign up!
Login:
Pass:  
  • Forget your password?
  • Want to sign up?
  •       ...blogs for gamers

    Find a GameLog
    ... by game ... by platform
     
    advanced search  advanced search ]
    HOME GAMES LOGS MEMBERS     ABOUT HELP
     
    Hazmat24's GameLog for Grand Theft Auto - San Andreas (PS2)

    Monday 29 September, 2008

    We meet the main character, an African-American man named Carl Johnson, in an airport as he’s coming back home upon hearing of his mother’s death. Several stereotypes are immediately put forth: he gets arrested on the way home from the airport—none of the officers are African-American, his home is in the poorer part of town, simply reinforcing the ‘ghetto’ stereotype. His house is run-down, he used to be in a gang, and his neighbors curse like pirates and smoke various substances.
    At one point, players are involved in a drive-by shooting that they must escape via bikes. As I was pedaling, I decided that this mode of transportation was getting me/Carl nowhere fast, as I had already been sent to the hospital once. So I hijacked a car instead and came to my first real ethical quandary: Do I keep pedaling to save my life, or do I steal another’s car to have a better chance to save my life? Ethically, I believe it’s better to take another person’s car if it means you’ll have a better chance of not getting shot dead. Stealing the car won’t prove that you won’t get shot, but you’ll surely have a better chance of outrunning the pursuers who are also in vehicles. It’s rather Rule Utilitarian in that the benefits outweigh the harms, making it morally acceptable. The harms include: taking the property of another, physically yanking that person out of their car and risking injury to them. You could even say it emotionally harms the pedestrians witnessing the violent hijacking. The benefits though: me/Carl having a much better chance of not getting killed, outweigh the harms. If doing this act would save one life, then it is worth taking the car.
    This dilemma also goes against Rule Utilitarianism in that this is an exceptional circumstance, and as me/Carl stealing the vehicle doesn’t benefit everyone, the rules shouldn’t be overthrown for this one case.
    I see the appeal in this game in that it feels very ‘real.’ By real I mean that it’s the player’s job to see that Carl has enough energy and stamina to do the missions. He needs to eat to maintain energy, but if he eats too much he gets fat and that’s well documented in the Stats tab on the screen, along with Respect and Sex Appeal. These are apparently going to be valuable later in GTA.
    There aren’t many values presented in the game just yet. One I can name would be the respect issue, where by completing missions you can gain respect among your peers and earn Stat points. This sounds fine and innocent, however these missions include being involved in drive-by shootings by rival gangs and driving around your friend who likes to rob pizza stores.
    Overall, I think GTA deserves the ‘M’ rating it has; for the swearing alone if for nothing else.

    Comments
    1

    Your step by step progression through Rule Utilitarianism was good. You came to the right conclusion and you logically laid out the pros and cons of each possible decision, and the stake holders in this case, which makes your argument agreeable. Good Job

    Thursday 16 October, 2008 by mtisdale
    write a comment      back to log
     
    NEED SOMETHING HERE
    blablabla
    blablabla

     home

    games - logs - members - about - help - recent updates

    Copyright 2004-2014