back to article #Gamergate folk load flamethrower, roast own feet over GTA V 'ban'

Gamergate has flared anew, and perhaps less coherently, after discount department store chain Target Australia decided to take Grand Theft Auto V off its shelves in response to a successful petition on Change.org (after initially resisting the request). The new flareup's lack of coherence comes from the fact that plenty of …

  1. LaeMing
    Happy

    USians will just have to start getting used to there being a 'rest of the world' out there!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @LaeMing

      Appropriate name, LAME ing.

      Did you even bother to read the article where the protest/boycott targetted the WRONG Target Corp?

      The one that did the ban (Westfall) was a Franchisee of the Target and KMart brand?

      That the people "in the rest of the world" were ignorant of that fact and are boycotting the wrong store?

      Dumbfucks, you can't even get the correct "Target" in your sights in your rush to judgement.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: @LaeMing

        but how to people in the rest of the world boycott the stores in the USA? surely, by being in places in the world other than the USA, they are already not shopping at the US stores?

        its the 'mericans that don't realise that their boycotting of local stores will have no impact.

      2. Eddy Ito

        @Appropriate Coward

        Did you read the article? You seem incapable of understanding the difference between a franchise and a license. Perhaps you should look it up. We'll be here when you get back, promise.

        Oh, I see you're back.

        People aren't calling for a boycott of the "WRONG Target Corp" as that implies there is a "RIGHT Target Corp" which there isn't. There is Target Corp in the US and Target Australia Pty Ltd in Australia and they are completely independent entities - one is not a franchise of the other. The only thing in common is the logo and the brand "Target" which are the only things the Australian entity licenses.

        It's hardly the fault of regular blokes that confuse the two since they both use the same brand and logo. That's one reason why some companies defend their brand and logo and don't license it to other companies. Target Corp granted that license and now it gets to learn that it is often a mistake when you don't have control over it, which they would have had it been merely another franchise.

        Class dismissed, run along.

  2. This post has been deleted by its author

  3. Winkypop Silver badge
    FAIL

    A ban?

    The best marketing campaign you never need pay for.

    1. jai

      Re: A ban?

      Rockstar somehow manage it with every release. this isn't even a new game - it's just re-released for the new consoles. and yet it still gets a ban and the associated press coverage.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    *sigh*

    Another "win" for the gamer idiocracy. Tell me again why folks with enough neurons to play something requiring more object recognition than identifying mammary-pixels from non-mammary pixels let these troglodytes hijack the public consciousness? Or are so-called gamers really that stupid? Count me out... I'll go back to my games and just call myself "human."

  5. as2003

    That video was painfully dull. I kept waiting for some kind of content.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Everything's a target in GTA.

  7. dan1980

    Sigh.

    From the petition:

    "This is Grand Theft Auto 5. This game means that after various sex acts, players are given options to kill women by punching her unconscious, killing with a machete, bat or guns to get their money returned."

    Sigh.

    Taking the "sex acts" away, you can punch pretty much anyone unconscious or kill them "with a machete, bat or guns" and grab their money.

    Do you know that you can even steal a police car, see an African American driving a car, pull him out of it and then beat him with a baton and then kick him in the head while he's lying on the road?

    Or you can kill a police officer or an ambulance driver. Or a group of young adults having a picnic on a beach. Or a dock worker, or a petrol station attendant, or a mountain biker, or lady whose handbag you just returned. You can kill all those people and you can do it will knives and pistols and rifles and shotguns and grenades and rocket launchers.

    You can run them over with a car - with their own car if you like. Or you can douse them in petrol and burn them alive - in or out of the car. You can even stick explosives on a train to stop it, setting the driver on fire.

    But have the family of Rodney King* protested to get the game off the shelves? Are stores taking it down because of complaints from the police? From public transport workers? Extreme sport enthusiasts?

    You can take a taxi and, after arriving, assault the driver, kill him and take the money. You hired someone for a service then, after paying them for that service, you are able to kill them and take the money. But was the taxi drivers union demanding the game be banned?

    No, because those events are not scripted or 'encouraged' - you, as the player, can choose to do pretty much whatever you want. Every person (excepting certain events that are actually more scripted) can be hit and kicked and beaten and shot and, if they have money, you can then take it. The game also has prostitutes and those prostitutes and people just like the anyone else.

    You are not "given options to kill women" - that is a DELIBERATE misrepresentation of the way the game works. You are presented with an more-or-less open world in which you can decided what you want to do not from a list of pre-defined, multiple choice actions but by your own imagination.

    You can also stand right next to a prostitute and continuously jump up and down but you can do that because you, as the character have the ability to jump and a button that controls that. There isn't a special "jump next to the hookers" option when playing the game - you can jump, there are hookers: you can perform the action next to the (game) object.

    And, in the same way, there isn't a special "murder the hooker and take you money back option". having performed 'sex acts' with a prostitute, you aren't presented with a dialog box saying:

    Press A to punch your prostitute unconscious and steal her money

    Press B to kill your prostitute with a machete and steal her money

    Press X to shoot your prostitute with a gun and steal her money

    Press Y to get back in your car and drive off

    - you can shoot people, people can drop money, you can pickup the money. This, apparently is no problem for our petition signers. The huge problem apparently comes when you add one small element: some of the 'people' are hookers.

    Apparently the problem is that you can kill them after having sex with them but the game engine does not distinguish the two - it's not like you can only kill them once you've engaged their services - you can walk up to a group of prostitutes and shoot them all with a light machine gun and then walk away.

    Just don't perform 'sex acts' with them first. Apparently.

    Violence, murder and theft are all wrong. But playing Call of Duty doesn't make you go out and kill Russians or Germans with an M14, playing Dead or Alive doesn't make you go out and suplex nubile and impossibly proportioned young women, playing Fallout doesn't make you abuse pain killers, playing Doom doesn't make you into a Satanist and playing GTA V doesn't "groom" young men to make women "scapegoats for male violence" or "fuel the epidemic of violence experienced by so many girls and women".

    1. frank ly

      Re: Sigh.

      Can a player have the role of a female and/or a 'black' character and do all the things you described? If so, it would be non-discriminatory. (Just trying to be logical here.)

      1. Kaltern

        Re: Sigh.

        Yes to a black guy, no to a female character, because it just so happens that the game - indeed the world - doesn't revolve around a woman. Which is probably the main issue here.

        1. jai

          Re: Sigh. @Kaltern

          "Yes to a black guy, no to a female character"

          Actually, in the online mode, you can create your own characters, no? and you can choose to play a female character if you want - and there you can do all the same violent things as in the single player game.

          *actually, i assume there are hookers in the online version? i'm generally too busy trying to not get shot by some 12 year old who's screaming over the voice chat than to go curb crawling. but the rest of the world is populated the same as the single player version so i don't see why not.

        2. jai

          Re: Sigh. @Kaltern

          "doesn't revolve around a woman"

          although, in fact, it does. The whole game happens because of the relationship with Michael and his wife.

          (spoilers)

          Michael wouldn't have gone into witsec if it hadn't been for her and the kids, and thereby not screwed over Trevor. Even if he had decided to quit at that point, she's the one screwing around with the tennis coach, that puts Michael in the position of needing to raise cash and hence go back to the life, dragging Franklin in tow. The whole plot of the game is entirely down to Amanda and her actions.

      2. toxicdragon

        Re: Sigh.

        Just as a quick response to frank.

        In the standard single player game there is no females but there is a black playable character, however in the online mode, you can play as females, and since you can basically do the same things there as in single player there is nothing to stop you from doing what was suggested.

    2. VinceH

      @dan1980 Re: Sigh.

      Upvote for obvious reasons.

      Meanwhile, I had to read this bit twice:

      "Or you can kill a police officer or an ambulance driver."

      I read the second "or" as "with" the first time, and imagined the player swinging the ambulance driver around like a massive baseball bat to hit the police officer. (Which would be fun!1)

      I have GTA V, but haven't broken the seal as yet - if I hadn't spotted my mistake, imagine how disappointed I'd have been when I finally started playing it. ;)

      1. Note for the thought police: Fun in the context of the game. I wouldn't do that in real life... I'm far too unfit to lift an ambulance driver and use him that way, so all police officers are perfectly safe from this kind of attack.

      1. dan1980

        Re: @dan1980 Sigh.

        @VinceH

        Upvoted for giving me cause to say, genuinely: "LOL".

        I have GTA V and I must confess that spend a good 90% of my time playing golf and tennis and highjacking light planes so I can cruise around peacefully. I have about 80% of the story in front of me but I can't seem to care. Far more fun to take a dirt bike and ride up a mountain or drive along the coast, taking random detours when you see something that looks fun to launch your car/bike over.

        Or spending half an hour trying to steal a fighter jet, only to get shot down half a minute after you finally succeed.

    3. Lamont Cranston

      Re: Sigh.

      You forget to mention that playing PacMan doesn't make you run around darkened rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive music.

      1. dan1980

        Re: Sigh.

        @ Lamont Cranston

        It doesn't make you "run around darkened rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive music".

      2. Vinyl-Junkie
        Coat

        Re: Sigh.

        "You forget to mention that playing PacMan doesn't make you run around darkened rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive music"

        So what did cause the rave generation then?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Sigh.

          Rave? keep up mate, Rave was the follow on from Acid House, that's where all the bleepy pill munching really started.

      3. AbelSoul
        Trollface

        Re: Sigh.

        You forget to mention that playing PacMan doesn't make you run around darkened rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive music.

        It doesn't?

        As someone who played a fair bit of PacMan as a kid, all I can say is, if it wasn't PacMan that caused it, what was it?

      4. Tim Jenkins

        Re: Sigh.

        So what was it that made us do that, then? I'm guessing subliminal messages in Blue Peter...

      5. Steve Gill

        Re: Sigh.

        @Lamont Cranston - Do you remember 80s clubs? Are you totally sure PacMan didn't cause that?

        1. Lamont Cranston

          Re: Sigh.

          This is the last time I steal a joke from Charlie Brooker.

      6. Stretch

        Re: Sigh.

        Speak for yourself Lamont

      7. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Sigh.

        He certainly did for a while for me.

      8. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Sigh.

        Marcus Brigstocke rang, he wants his joke back

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Sigh.

      That ability has been there since 2001 and GTA 3 as well.

  8. Suricou Raven

    I'm surprised an Australian retailer will carry it, given some of their censorship policies.

    1. dan1980

      @Suricou Raven

      Why wouldn't they? We have an R18+ rating now and it is legal and it's not like it won't sell. I think the BIG thing is that Target and K-mart are both sell a lot of stuff for kids and families - i.e. purchased by mums. (And dads, of course, but mostly mums.)

      Leading up to Christmas and thinking about all the clothing and toys they will sell, not to mention eskies and cheap outdoor settings and poorly molded wading pools, I suspected they are reasoning that, as the game has been out a while and many people have already bought it, they might stand to lose more from opinionated mums who will buy their poorly-stitched toddler clothing for Best and Less in protest than they will from gamers looking to buy the latest game.

      I only set foot inside Target when I have seen a specific, advertised game at an excellent price. With 100% honesty, I can say that it has to be a big saving. If it's just $10, I buy it from my local specialist store. (They are MASSIVE nerds - it's awesome.) But then I never open a Target catalogue so the last time that happened was years ago.

      It's a calculated move leading up to a profitable shopping time - are they really going to lose much business from gamers who will refuse to shop there on principle? No. Do they stand to lose a noticeable amount from nosy, opinionated parents buying under-sized and inadequately-braced beach umbrellas from arch-rival Big-W (Woolworths) instead? Yes.

  9. Raumkraut

    Right on target

    While it may be a misunderstanding that led to people targeting Target US, it is not necessarily a futile gesture if Target Aus licenses the brand from Target US (or from the same licensor if Target US is also a franchise).

    The licensor of the shared Target brand should well take an interest in what license-holders do with that brand, and they could certainly threaten to withdraw (or at least not renew) the franchisee's ability to use the Target brand name, if they strongly disagreed with a decision.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Right on target

      Indeed. If you license your brand you have to take a close interest in what's done with it - you can't just pocket the cash and leave the licensee to do whatever they want, trashing your brand in the process. The protesters have accidentally picked quite a good target.

      1. AbelSoul
        Headmaster

        Re: The protesters have accidentally picked quite a good target.

        I see what you did there.

  10. Graham 13

    more misogyny

    Have any women gamers stood up? This isn't about retailers it's about the content.... all the people jumping up and down need to talk to some girls about this topic... that is if they know any girls...

    Violence against women is the issue it shouldn't be portrayed as entertainment in film or literature at least you are disconnected from the characters but acting this out in a game is wrong!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: more misogyny

      Yes, violence against women is bad, but is it any more bad than say, violence against people of different nationalities / races?

      Or are women a special case that need extra consideration because they aren't on an equal footing to the rest of the human race, and therefore should be treated differently?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: more misogyny

      Cobblers. Violence against everything is entirely the point of the whole game. Picking on one facet of the game and calling it an "ism" is just bollocks, frankly.

      I can destroy fire hydrants in a multitude of interesting ways, but does that make it fire-hydrantist? No it does not.

      That the prostitutes are all female and that there's no female characters you can play, now that's misogyny -probably cost-driven- but being PC is not what GTA is for.

    3. dan1980

      Re: more misogyny

      @Graham 13

      At the risk of being rude (you are new here - we're not all as bad as me) - do you actually have any idea what you're talking about?

      I mean that seriously - have you ever played GTA V?

      If not - and it seems this must be the case - then let me fill you in. It is an 'open world' game, which means that you get a living, vibrant world (in this case an island) and you are let loose. There is a story of course but that is utterly optional beyond the introduction, which has nothing at all to do with prostitutes.

      The world contains NPCs (non-player characters) that, in the absence of any interference largely go on with their business. 'People' talk to each other on the street, they drive cars around, they pilot boats and helicopters and planes, they ride up mountain trails and operate trains. They announce stops on tour buses and ride the light rail system and generally just get on with it.

      The way games like GTA work is to develop series of classes into which the various objects are assigned and actions which can be taken. They then model the effects of various actions on various objects.

      For example, an object 'objCar_banshee' of class 'CCar' will, when interacting with an object of class 'CPerson' by way of action 'collide' with parameter of 'velocity=100mph' have the effects of deforming the sub-object 'objCar_banshee_bonnet', altering the orientation of sub-object 'objCar_wheels' and reducing the quantity of property 'intCar_speed' and 'intCar_stability'. As regards the object of class 'CPerson', the object will gain an increase in property 'velocity' along the vector 'impact_angle', while the several sub-objects of 'objPerson_L_arm', 'objPerson_R_leg', etc... will move according to sub-routine 'subBrace'. When the object of class 'CPerson' is then subject to action 'collision' with an object of class 'CBrick' of parent class 'CWall', while having property 'velocity' of 90mph (due to the object of class 'CPerson' previously interacting with the property 'wind_resistance'), then the object of class 'CPerson' will acquire property 'dead' and sub-object 'objPerson_L_leg' and other objects of class 'CLimbs' will cease to move in accordance with sub-routine 'subBrace' and will instead have trajectories calculated by sub-routine 'subRagdoll', which will be altered by the parameters passed from the objects of classes 'CArms' and 'CLegs' along with the inherited properties from class 'CLimbs'.

      Again, I truly don't mean to be rude but READ the above. It's just a very crude example of what I mean and, not being a programmer, I have almost certainly made a meal of it in any number of ways*. BUT, that is the kind of way this works.

      In GTA V, there are objects of class "CPerson" and sub-class "CProstitute". This sub-class has some specific actions and triggers associated with it to be sure. BUT - and this is the important part - the interactions between it and 'objBullet' of class 'C50_cal' or 'C12ga_pellet' or between it and 'objMelee' or class 'CKnife' or 'CBaseball_bat' are dependent on the properties of class 'CPerson' and not sub-class 'CProstitute'.

      This is CRUCIAL. The game gives you the freedom to apply any action you want to any object you want and the object will be affected accordingly to the intersection of a bunch of properties and rules pertaining to the type of action undertaken and the classes that the object possesses.

      In this instance, a prostitute is an object of class 'person' and so when you take action 'shoot' with object 'bullet', the object 'prostitute' will behave in accordance with the rules and properties set forth in class 'person'.

      The only way to change this is to make objects of sub-class "prostitute" no longer members the parent class 'person'. I wonder if this is what the petitioners would like . . . ?

      * - To any programmer, you have my apologies.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

        1. dan1980

          Re: more misogyny - but there exists Method Overriding

          @AC

          "To put it more simply . . ."

          Completely, but the 'simple' version has been said several times above and yet seemingly not understood so I decided to illustrate the procedural, impersonal nature of the engine and the programming via a drawn-out, laborious passage.

          Method - that's the word I was looking for. Like I said - I'm no programmer!

          You are correct; Rockstar could have effectively turned the class of 'prostitute' into a special class that is not subject to the same rules as all the other members of class 'person', but this is exactly the point - the petitioners are implying (very strongly) that the game specifically targets and encourages violence towards women - singles them out for special treatment, which is, though in the opposite way, exactly what 'method overriding' (in our discussion) would be.

          If you shoot a person on the street in real life, they will die. If you shoot a person on the street in GTA V, they will die. A prostitute is a person on the street.

          My point is not that you couldn't make it so that prostitutes can't be shot, but that the fact that you CAN shoot prostitutes has NOTHING to do with them being prostitutes - or women.

          It is an open world that tries to model the real world (over the top, sure) - if you crash your car into a barrier, it will get damaged and maybe even be unusable. If you crash it into another car, the other driver may get out and chase you. If you crash it at high enough speed, you may die. If you drive it into the water and don't get out in time, you will die. If you jump off a building, you may be injured or, if it's high enough, you may die. If you get hit my a train, you will die. If you try to drive up a steep hill in a slow and underpowered car, you will slip back down. If you start shooting in the street, the police will come. If you kill a police officer, more police will come. If you break into a military base, you will be shot. If you botch a plane landing, you will die. If you run too far, you will tire. If you point a gun at a convenience store cashier, he will hand over the money from the till.

          If you shoot a prostitute, she will die.

    4. SundogUK Silver badge

      Re: more misogyny

      But violence against men is perfectly OK?

    5. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      Re: more misogyny

      ...but violence against men is okay, eh? I guess that makes sense. Men are "disposable", after all. And not deserving of actual equality with the same rights as women.

      Violence against women is obviously special and different. I see it all now...

  11. dan1980

    Addressing the petition directly again, it says:

    "The incentive is to commit sexual violence against women, then abuse or kill them to proceed or get 'health' points . . ."

    Note exactly what they are saying: first you "commit sexual violence" and then you can "abuse or kill" the prostitutes.

    Given that the sequence of events is:

    1. - Talk to a prostitute

    2. - Choose between getting a 'hand-job' or 'full' sex

    3. - Automatically pay the prostitute

    4. - End interaction

    5. - punch/hit/slash/shoot prostitute

    6. - Pickup money on ground

    One must assume that the "sexual violence" consists of steps 1 - 4, given it must, logically, occur before step 5.

    Now, given, further, that this petition was started by former sex workers who claim that this game "shows hatred and contempt for women in the sex industry", one must conclude that they are not against sex workers, hence presumably do not have a problem with steps 1 - 4.

    That part would seem normal because, at least to someone who has never engaged the services of a prostitute or had a lap dance or even seen a (female) stripper, those four steps seem to be the way one would procure the services of someone working in the 'sex industry'.

    So if steps 1 - 4 portray a relatively normal, if somewhat stylised or shortened, sequence that one would go through in order to engage the services of a sex worker on the street, and the people who put forward this petition are doing so in support of sex workers, then one must, again, conclude that these steps are NOT, in fact committing 'sexual violence against women'.

    The violence happens AFTER this normal and non-violent interaction and, so far as the game engine and coding is concerned, is ENTIRELY SEPARATE and the fact that you can kill a prostitute after you have had sex with her is based on the fact that you can kill any NPC that appears around you and once you have sex with a prostitute, that prostitute re-appears near you.

    That you play a male character and can kill a female NPC does not mean that the game fuels an 'epidemic' of violence against women any more than the fact that you can play a white character and kill a black NPC or as a black character and kill a white NPC means that the game fuels racial killings. You also play as a criminal and can kill cops. Does that mean the game 'encourages' players commit violence against the police?

    Indeed, engaging prostitutes is entirely optional and you can go the whole game without interacting with one - let alone killing one. On the other hand, however, you can't even finish the scripted introduction without killing a whole host of police. Let me repeat that: you have to shoot cops to even start the game.

    But guess what? The game also lets you drive quad bikes into the ocean, cycle off mountains, run in front of traffic and jump to your death off buildings. Just because the game's engine allows you to do something doesn't mean it encourages you to do it. You get given a world filled with objects and some rules about how objects can interact with each other. It's up to the player to choose what actually happens.

  12. tekHedd

    Branding

    The whole idea of branding is that you can identify the product from the brand. Yes it's a different company, but they share the brand. After all the energy they've put into strongly associating the brand with their product and making it clearly identifiable, it's not the consumer's fault if we accidentally associate that brand with their company. Oh so sorry.

    When you license your brand to a completely independent entity, you take a risk. Their problem, not ours.

  13. Fluffy Bunny
    Facepalm

    Slactivists

    Slactivist, the new word for wanker.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Slactivists

      Or, wankers, the pertinent word for slactivists.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon