Exactly. Well said and I couldn't agree more

I didn't think of it like that. I guess I was only focusing on the missions and forgetting what you could do outside the missions.

To be honest, I spend my time in GTA V driving around, boating, flying, or playing the (limited) activities it offers. A few weeks ago I was actually surprised to find that main plot aside, the game really isn't that violent. The characters aren't nice, but the game doesn't force you to do bad things outside the missions. I literally spent an in-game day where Michael woke up, got into casual clothes and took a taxi everywhere he went. No violence, nothing. Just a dude in a taxi driving all over Los Santos running errands. Phoned up Franklin and they went to a bar. Then I had them stay on the sidewalk until the 'drunk screen' cleared up and I let them drive again.

In short, like you said, when you're not doing the missions, you're not forced to do evil actions.

Thought you didn't play them?

But to actually progress in the game, you have to do the missions, and what's when the difference comes in. If GTA was just open world sandbox goofing around, I doubt there'd be any more controversy than anything else.

Watch Dog's is another example of this, outside of missions... you don't need to do "bad things", you could drive around, play poker, play chess, listen to music, etc... Hell it even gives you a choice in how you treat enemies, you can shoot them, or you can knock them out.

And Sleeping Dogs as well. Outside missions, I think there are plenty of activities in the open world that doesn't involve kicking people in the face.


Oh yeah, in order to progress to the end at all, you have to do all the horrible stuff the missions make you do. It's no different in the first two Saints Row games. Funnybunny's point, I think, was that outside the missions (whether you beat the game or not), we have the freedom to decide whether we want things to be peaceful or chaotic. I personally like peace, so I often like to take the trio out to go golfing, or have Franklin throw a ball with his dog on the beach that sort of thing. In Saints Row 2, for another example, I can take Boss and have him/her go on a peaceful drive to a fast food joint, purchase some food, then drive out to the docks and eat the food. No chaos, no 'street gang' stuff. Outside the missions, we do have control.

@ Jack Bauer 24- I was being extremely snarky and trollish. A bad habit of mine. :[

I'd take what he says with a grain of salt. Just earlier he said he doesn't play them. Now he does and knows all about them. Very weird.

Edit: Sleeping Dogs now too. So actually he's very versed in these type of games.

Were the complainers actually Target Australia customers, or were they just a group of social justice warriors who decided they were offended by the game and made an effort to get it pulled from the shelves?

Yes. I play GTA V, Saints Row, and Sleeping Dogs. I was being a sarcastic, snarky troll earlier. Guess it worked a little too well...

Lol no it's cool I was just confused.

lol, no prob. xD

...which is insane, IMO. Both that people think that the solution to the "problem" is to threaten the retailer and that it's the retailer's responsibility to decide what media people should/shouldn't be allowed to buy.

That has nothing to do with it. People in the U.S. do things that are just as misguided.

Lol...you watch too much sensationalist TV. It's not really much different than any other Western country at the end of the day, despite what TV would like you to believe. This is coming from someone that lives in the U.S. (and has been around it quite a bit) and has spent time in quite a few other countries.

Example: I live in Chicago (actually in the city proper)...the current flavor of the month for, "OMG NOBODY IS SAFE EVERYONE HIDE U GONNA GET SHOT AHHHHHHHH!" TV news sensationalism. The city is safe if you stay out of areas that you have no business being in the first place (like all big cities have always been), yet news people make it sound like there are bullets whizzing around everywhere you go. It's just a pathetic ratings grab like all TV news is. They play on whatever they think people like/dislike/are afraid of/etc. and use it to get you to watch/click/etc. They make money off of convincing people to hate and fear things. It generates interest, which generates ad revenue. Nothing new.

There is no country in this world where no one is robbed, beaten, [censored] or murdered. In a country that bans media based on violence is it not plausible that the mainstream media can't or won't show you the news stories of those crimes being committed. I'm not saying their occurrence is equal to any other places, just that criminals exist in your country too and they don't restrain themselves based on location.

Y'all can just use the report button for offensive posts, y'know. That way we don't have to derail the thread for the inth time. Let's put this pony back in the pasture. Easy up there, now, don't push. She doesn't like that.

# Absolutely loving the 'Americans=Cowboy' stereotype and milking it for all its worth.

Submitting to bully tactics again... Too many "progressives" nowadays resort to standard bully tactics and coerce companies that don't agree with them into doing what they want, yet claim they're progressive and hate bullying.

Tolerance is a two way street, if I gotta tolerate unlikable 'feminists' squawking about every menial thing that MAY be offensive to women, they gotta tolerate my games filled with excessive violence.
The difference though is that they're all in your face about it, this is a game you gotta go out and buy and put in your console to be subjected to it. So really, it's a self created problem.

Also I thought feminists wanted equality, don't they?
Well equal rights, equal fights, that's all I gotta say.

What gets me is the mentality that any sort of violent act against a woman in a video game is considered "purposeful violence against women." Just being able to beat a woman up is supposedly offensive and wrong in that context, despite being able to beat up everyone regardless of gender.

If the game had specific missions where you had to abuse your spouse or target a woman for torture just because she's a woman, yeah I could definitely see how that is offensive.

But just being able to punch a woman in the game makes no sense. In that case you're essentially making women out to be inhuman. Oh, women can't be hurt and must be protected like delicate little flowers from everything including fictional violence? They can't fight or get into scraps with men? They can't be treated like any human male in a video game can?

Isn't that the exact opposite of what feminism wants to achieve?

Thing is, I can't think of anywhere in any Australian city where I'd be afraid of going (though I admit Melbourne is the only one I'm familiar with). I might tell a visitor to be careful if they find themselves in somewhere like Frankston or Dandenong, especially at night, but I wouldn't have reason to tell them to never go anywhere near the places -- I'd see no problem with them checking out the beaches in Frankston or swinging by the market in Dandenong.

Nowhere did I say there is no crime in Australia. All I was getting at is that there is no place where it is so rampant that the area becomes dangerous to average people (more risky, perhaps, but you'd be more worried about your wallet than your life).

please everyone, can we stop with the Discussion of Real World Countries, and Crime?! and dunno, actually get back on Topic?

not only are you guys derailing the thread, but you are doing it in a manner that goes against these forums rules

For that matter, why are these feminists only targeting GTA? Why aren't they demanding that Skyrim be taken off the market for promoting violence against women? There are lots and lots of instances in Skyrim where you're hacking women to death with swords and axes, pelting them with arrows or blasting them with spells. Hell, in Skyrim you can even strip them once you've killed them (maybe you can do the same in GTA - I don't know). So why aren't these people picketing Bethesda, demanding that the women in their games be implemented just like the children are, unable to be harmed in any way?

Because these are people who don't actually play games, and usually just go for the most high-profile target.

Because it's Rockstar, the king of the industry.

if anything its EA or Ubisoft thats king of the Industry.. they make much more Money each year than Rockstar, and the goal of all Industries is just that, to make the $$$

Why do my threads always get derailed =_= ...

Anyway, in the long run it's only going to harm them over the Christmas period. Maybe I should start a petition for them to stop selling 50 Shades of Grey because it objectifies women.

Double-Standards. If Bethesda does it, no one cares. If GTA does it, all the tables are flipped.

Though to be fair, GTA does go out of its way to piss off everyone, feminists included and they know it. It's an endless cycle. GTA offends, offended party get angry, and everyone else thinks they're being silly.

Secondly, the women in GTA are basically the walking epitomes of every nasty stereotype applied to women whereas in Bethesda, there are plenty of strong female characters in their games (including your own character if you so wish.) In GTA, the intent IS to offend women. In Bethesda, there is no intent.

That's the internet for ya. If we can derail it, we will.

I, for one, support that petition. Wait, are you being sarcastic or serious. I honestly can't tell any more.

There is a report button. If you think something is in the wrong, use it instead of... *ahem* doing what you're doing. Such posts are even more off-topic, and if the first reminder doesn't work what makes you think flapping your hands about will? The crud you're complaining about has remained civil so far, too, and the reason for all the subject bans is just to avoid incivility.

[/grumpy bastard]