Category: (Movies/TV/Video)
Size: 360.74 MB
Status: 8 seeders and 4 leechers
Speed: 142.01 kB/s
Added: 2007-05-01 17:06:39
Description:
An episode of the late night USA news show Nightline from 2002 in which they look at GTA3. Here is the press release they put out for the show:
[quote]Grand Theft Auto 3, the game we'll look at tonight, is amazingly sophisticated. You have a whole city to play in, you can drive wherever you want. You hear snatches of conversations as you pass people on the street. You have a variety of radio stations to choose from in your car. It is an alternative reality. And the visuals are much smoother than most games. Why wouldn't a kid love it? Now one of the purposes of a game is to let us do things we can't normally do, like my racing game. But that generally means violence, whether it's blasting aliens, or monsters, or in this case, your fellow citizens.
In Grand Theft Auto 3, you play an ex-con. You are given assignments, or you can just drive around town and wreak havoc if you want. But the sophistication of the game is also applied to the violence. Beat someone to death with a club? The pool of bright red blood gets bigger each time you hit them. Shoot the cops? Sure, and they just keep coming. And I mentioned at the outset the whole thing about the prostitutes. This game is supposed to be sold only to those over 17. But let's face it, it wouldn't be the biggest-selling game if that were true. When was the last time you went to an R-rated movie that wasn't full of kids? Parents are buying the game for their kids, or a friendly store is selling it or whatever, but millions of kids are playing this game all the time. Is there any harm in this? No one has ever proven that there's a link between entertainment, whether it's games or videos or movies, and violent behavior, although that would seem to make sense. Does a game like this provide a release for violent impulses, or encourage them? Don't kids realize this is just a game? After all, they're not all running out and shooting down their neighbors after playing the game, although it's been widely reported that the two kids responsible for the Columbine shootings were ardent fans of violent games.
Or have we all become our parents? Kids love things that shock theirparents. That's part of the fun of being a teenager. But aren't there limits? Whether it causes harm or not, shouldn't there be some lines that you just don't cross? And if the goal is to shock your parents, each generation has to go a little farther each time. That's true of music, language, clothes, although for the life of me, I can't understand the '70's revival thing, it was not a pretty decade, why bring it back? But that's a whole different issue. I think of myself as a fairly jaded person. I've seen the worst that this world can offer. But I have to admit that I find parts of this game really troubling.
So that will be our focus tonight. Ted, joined by a psychiatrist, the Washington, D.C. Police Chief(we thought that only fair since one option of the game is to kill a fair number of policemen) and a 17-year-old who plays the game, but says after all, it is just a game, they'll all be able to play the game while they talk. It's interesting, a number of people who work here said that their kids have this game, but they had no idea what was in it. I fear that many kids will come to hate us for this broadcast, because I'm sure it will result in many of the games being taken away, but one part of this whole debate is the responsibility of parents to know what their kids are watching/playing/seeing. So that's our plan for tonight, I hope you'll join us.[/quote]
I captured this from a VHS copy that the university library had. It is a bit grainy but it took so long to encode it I didn't want to bother doing it again.