|
Thursday 24 September, 2009
1.5 hours in I feel that I have a general sense of the game. The main character values heavily loyalty and seems rather against hurting oneself. This becomes obvious when many other characters in the game of whom he once knew who were strong that are now addicted to drugs and therefore controlled by the source of the drugs. I could understand how it is disheartening to see the ones you have known and grown up with deterate into a drug addiction. More importantly, the problem with his ‘solution’ of fighting his way to the top is this sort of drug ring beat up. It may seem logical since the police seem to be in on it, but I think the game could of found a better way instead of wiping out everyone in the city to stop the drug problem. Perhaps that is not as fun, but the storyline would be more worthwhile.
Outside of the storyline, it’s interesting to look at the perspective of the software vendor who created the game. I suppose the point of a company is to make money (for their stakeholders etc.), but what impact does their product have society on a whole. I’m not sure off hand if there is any conclusive evidence for such, however, I do feel that it is a good idea that the games has a mature rating. Limiting the exposure of developing minds to this sort of environment of ‘hurting others is ok, if you feel it is right’ will be a good thing.
In conclusion, I would personally never purchase the game. Being a gangster and killing people hasn’t and probably never will be my favorite past time. I think the sense of doing good by eliminating drugs through violent means is a little misleading. One could say that it may be better for everyone in the end and perhaps those who use act utilitarianism may deem it ethical, however, I feel that act utilitarianism would be best used and given current day society such act of killing would be against such rule.
|
