GTA V - Amnesty condemns torture scene

[Ticklefist]

Shitting into your mouth is good because it teaches you that shitting into your mouth is bad.

 

[EHKOS]

but also to imply that information obtained under torture is reliable.

At the end of the mission Trevor has a talk about his opinion being the exact opposite. And it wasn't reliable, the guy barely knew anything. I saw it as Rockstar protesting torture.

Although I did have a worryingly, sickening amount of fun with it.

EDIT: For those of you stating he would have told them everything anyway, he really didn't. He could have screamed it out before Trevor touched him but he didn't. If you don't blurt out the info while the guy is slowly making his way tword you with a car battery, then you aren't THAT willing to talk.

 

[LegendaryVKickr]

Should have the option to sensor this scene or completely disable it. Just like that one CoDMW2 mission which you can skip.

COD did that because it's a game made for kids and mass appeal in general.

GTA is not meant to appeal to everyone, especially kids, and having the scene be "optional" would completely take out the point of having it in the first place.

COD doing something doesn't mean everyone else has to do it. On that note, why don't you see COD giving you an option to play the game without shooting people at all?

Because they want people to be desensitized to the idea of killing certain people.

Letting you skip the "no russian" scene also made it obvious and undeniable that the scene had no real relevance on the story or game in the first place. If you can get a complete experience without playing it, then it didn't need to be there at all.

They still could make it optional to sensor it. I'm not moved by that scene at all but quiet a few people are so that would be the best sollution w/o making a plothole.

You can't entirely avoid doing the mission, but you can fail the mission intentionally, three times, and the game will allow you to skip past the part that's giving you trouble. I plan to balls up the mission and just pass over it. Sorry GTA, I'm squeamish and pulling a man's teeth out is not something I signed on for.

Good, that's the point, you shouldn't enjoy seeing it or pretending to do it.
It's a good thing that they made you feel sick and made you do this mission to complete the game, the subject of torture has become a joke especially in games and it's about time they start giving people a little dose of reality because the "escapism" trend is only leading to a completely emotionally detached society.

I mean I guess it all depends on how they wrote it. I haven't seen this mission, or even played GTA V yet. I worry it's going to be played up like "Remember when we did full frontal nudity for the sake of controversy?" Which was fine, because there's nothing wrong with nudity. A prolonged scene with pulling a guys teeth out for the sake of simply doing it might be over the line.

So I really hope you're right, and that they have an angle with this. Because otherwise it will make Rockstar seem detached, rather than a portrayal of society.

 

[Carpenter]

Is it like Splinter Cell where it's completely misplaced and stupidly over the top? Cause that really ruined a lot of Conviction for me, not that i was taking it particularly seriously in the first place but it was in very poor taste.

I don't know how it is in GTAV but i imagine it's just Rockstar trying to be controversial, something i really don't condone.

Conviction?

That was TV show torture, a guy punching people and slamming them into things until they talk. If that made you feel sick or uncomfortable, you are so far removed from reality and "real torture" that you probably should play the scene just to at least be on the right track of what we are talking about.

"Torture" in conviction was played out as the "hero doing the hero's duty" and that's obviously not what's being done with GTA 5.

It wasn't uncomfortable it was just pretty silly (in the context of the game) and out of touch with the tone of the game, making me ask the question, why is it here?

It just feels like they are putting these ridiculous torture scenes into their games to appear edgy and "progressive" while it's really just out of place.

Wow that's just....sad.

Ok it's not a "they" putting torture scenes in games to appear edgy. The torture scene in GTA 5 is in no way comparable to the constant use of "torture" in conviction.

Conviction portrayed torture as a fun but useful way of getting information from "bad guys" and usually presented it in a way that would make Taken look like a cerebral masterpiece by comparison.

Slamming a guy into a mirror is not torture, it's not comparable to what's presented in GTA 5.

GTA presented the torture to make people feel unpleasant, not to "appear edgy" but to make people think about the reality of torture. It's dirty, sick, and unpleasant.

 

[Carpenter]

Shitting into your mouth is good because it teaches you that shitting into your mouth is bad.

And that analogy would have value if Rockstar literally made the player torture a real person.

They didn't.

But yeah sure.

 

[Carpenter]

Should have the option to sensor this scene or completely disable it. Just like that one CoDMW2 mission which you can skip.

COD did that because it's a game made for kids and mass appeal in general.

GTA is not meant to appeal to everyone, especially kids, and having the scene be "optional" would completely take out the point of having it in the first place.

COD doing something doesn't mean everyone else has to do it. On that note, why don't you see COD giving you an option to play the game without shooting people at all?

Because they want people to be desensitized to the idea of killing certain people.

Letting you skip the "no russian" scene also made it obvious and undeniable that the scene had no real relevance on the story or game in the first place. If you can get a complete experience without playing it, then it didn't need to be there at all.

They still could make it optional to sensor it. I'm not moved by that scene at all but quiet a few people are so that would be the best sollution w/o making a plothole.

You can't entirely avoid doing the mission, but you can fail the mission intentionally, three times, and the game will allow you to skip past the part that's giving you trouble. I plan to balls up the mission and just pass over it. Sorry GTA, I'm squeamish and pulling a man's teeth out is not something I signed on for.

Good, that's the point, you shouldn't enjoy seeing it or pretending to do it.
It's a good thing that they made you feel sick and made you do this mission to complete the game, the subject of torture has become a joke especially in games and it's about time they start giving people a little dose of reality because the "escapism" trend is only leading to a completely emotionally detached society.

I mean I guess it all depends on how they wrote it. I haven't seen this mission, or even played GTA V yet. I worry it's going to be played up like "Remember when we did full frontal nudity for the sake of controversy?" Which was fine, because there's nothing wrong with nudity. A prolonged scene with pulling a guys teeth out for the sake of simply doing it might be over the line.

So I really hope you're right, and that they have an angle with this. Because otherwise it will make Rockstar seem detached, rather than a portrayal of society.

What? They didn't do full frontal nudity for the sake of controversy, it was a joke. I don't recall any controversy over a guys junk being showed in that game.

I think we are past the point of thinking it was "just for the sake of itself" when it's been stated over and over again that the torture isn't the best way to get the information and the guy doing the torture even says it himself.

Sorry but I am so sick of people looking at these things and going "oh they just did it to be edgy" as if no thought ever goes into anything.

If spec ops the line had been hugely popular at it's release, people would be arguing that it's just a stupid shooter that tried to be edgy and controversial. Because it didn't get a lot of praise, people are allowed to say that it's incredibly well thought out and deep.

Like it or not, the GTA games have always been thought out and meaningful, yes even the so called "silly games" like SA and VC.
There's a reason they don't release a new GTA every year, because they like to take the time to create a game that means something rather than just releasing cash bait.

 

[Kanova]

I love the part where they say Rockstar is forcing you to buy the game and play it, and using an example of 5-7 year olds seeing it. I am sure I don't have to point out how incredibly fucking stupid this is. All we can do, is just sit here and face palm.

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

It's fiction. Bad things are allowed to happen in fiction. Fiction is allowed to misrepresent reality.

I haven't seen the scene, so I don't know if it can be said to glorify or approve of torture, but that's hard to prove at the best of times. There's always someone ready to say, "Oh, it's ironic", (remember Far Cry 3?) then the argument just bogs down into semantics and meaninglessness.

As for protecting the kids from... oh fuck it, not even going to bother. It's an adult rated game. Join the bloody dots.

This is the same argument we've seen a hundred times. Although it's worth noting that here they specifically mention that they are merely expressing disapproval, not calling for censorship or the like.

God damnit I recently finished Far Cry 3 and thought that was more fucked up at the end then GTAV's torture scene.

 

[Robert Marrs]

Amnesty International is pretty much like PETA: whatever they say, they do it for publicity. But they only choose easy targets that are already controversial anyway. Like video games.

Aside from that, they do little at all. Let alone something with an actual purpose. Or something that leaves room for debate.

For the torture scene, GTA V is clearly aimed at adults and rated M/18+ everywhere. I guess people that age can handle the graphic material. If any parent is so goddamn irresponsible to let a four or five year old kid watch him or her playing (or let them even play themselves), it's a case for childcare. The parents alone would be to blame.

And for these anti-torture guys: breaking news, GTA has always been offensive. Deal with it.

It really pisses me off how every minority and interest group whines about games and movies being offensive or insulting to their bullshit views. I mean seriously, are they really so self righteous that they can't accept anything not being within their ethical and moral parameters? Have they ever heard of tolerance? Or does tolerance only apply when they want to do something questionable themselves?

If I consider something in a game or movie being inappropiate, I roll my eyes and turn it off at best. Maybe they should try that too sometime.

Im pretty sure most people are anti-torture but you hit the nail on the head. Every time I hear one of these groups complaining about just one thing in a game whether it be the depiction of women, the violence, the drugs or in this case torture all I can think is how hypocritical and selfish can you be. If you only care about what you perceive to be bad but nothing else that might offend millions of other people you are a hypocrite. The only reason people like that say anything is for the publicity to further their cause. You would never hear them calling out a torture scene in a less popular game. Kane and Lynch 2 had a brutal torture scene. Never heard a peep from them. Regardless of how noble your cause is you are doing yourself a disservice when you do things like this. The people who already agreed with you will probably continue to do so but pretty much everyone else will call your bs.

 

[Carpenter]

It's fiction. Bad things are allowed to happen in fiction. Fiction is allowed to misrepresent reality.

I haven't seen the scene, so I don't know if it can be said to glorify or approve of torture, but that's hard to prove at the best of times. There's always someone ready to say, "Oh, it's ironic", (remember Far Cry 3?) then the argument just bogs down into semantics and meaninglessness.

As for protecting the kids from... oh fuck it, not even going to bother. It's an adult rated game. Join the bloody dots.

This is the same argument we've seen a hundred times. Although it's worth noting that here they specifically mention that they are merely expressing disapproval, not calling for censorship or the like.

God damnit I recently finished Far Cry 3 and thought that was more fucked up at the end then GTAV's torture scene.

That was my "wake up" scene personally. I loved the game but I had a way of zoning out into autopilot. Not in a bad way, it's just I got so immersed into what was going on that I zoned right in. That scene sort of forced me out when I suddenly woke up to how odd this situation was.

It didn't make me sick or anything (have seen worse in real life) but it did make me think about the course of events so far and about what this game might be trying to convey.

Farcry 3 got great reviews, ton of praise, yet people still regard it as nothing more than a crazy shooter. It's pretty obvious that somebody put passion into the story and the use of symbolism to tell a bunch of sub stories.

 

[Scott Rothman]

"Grand Theft Auto V, one of the most expensive computer games ever made"

 

[LegendaryVKickr]

Should have the option to sensor this scene or completely disable it. Just like that one CoDMW2 mission which you can skip.

COD did that because it's a game made for kids and mass appeal in general.

GTA is not meant to appeal to everyone, especially kids, and having the scene be "optional" would completely take out the point of having it in the first place.

COD doing something doesn't mean everyone else has to do it. On that note, why don't you see COD giving you an option to play the game without shooting people at all?

Because they want people to be desensitized to the idea of killing certain people.

Letting you skip the "no russian" scene also made it obvious and undeniable that the scene had no real relevance on the story or game in the first place. If you can get a complete experience without playing it, then it didn't need to be there at all.

They still could make it optional to sensor it. I'm not moved by that scene at all but quiet a few people are so that would be the best sollution w/o making a plothole.

You can't entirely avoid doing the mission, but you can fail the mission intentionally, three times, and the game will allow you to skip past the part that's giving you trouble. I plan to balls up the mission and just pass over it. Sorry GTA, I'm squeamish and pulling a man's teeth out is not something I signed on for.

Good, that's the point, you shouldn't enjoy seeing it or pretending to do it.
It's a good thing that they made you feel sick and made you do this mission to complete the game, the subject of torture has become a joke especially in games and it's about time they start giving people a little dose of reality because the "escapism" trend is only leading to a completely emotionally detached society.

I mean I guess it all depends on how they wrote it. I haven't seen this mission, or even played GTA V yet. I worry it's going to be played up like "Remember when we did full frontal nudity for the sake of controversy?" Which was fine, because there's nothing wrong with nudity. A prolonged scene with pulling a guys teeth out for the sake of simply doing it might be over the line.

So I really hope you're right, and that they have an angle with this. Because otherwise it will make Rockstar seem detached, rather than a portrayal of society.

What? They didn't do full frontal nudity for the sake of controversy, it was a joke. I don't recall any controversy over a guys junk being showed in that game.

I think we are past the point of thinking it was "just for the sake of itself" when it's been stated over and over again that the torture isn't the best way to get the information and the guy doing the torture even says it himself.

Sorry but I am so sick of people looking at these things and going "oh they just did it to be edgy" as if no thought ever goes into anything.

If spec ops the line had been hugely popular at it's release, people would be arguing that it's just a stupid shooter that tried to be edgy and controversial. Because it didn't get a lot of praise, people are allowed to say that it's incredibly well thought out and deep.

Like it or not, the GTA games have always been thought out and meaningful, yes even the so called "silly games" like SA and VC.
There's a reason they don't release a new GTA every year, because they like to take the time to create a game that means something rather than just releasing cash bait.

Perhaps I should rephrase the first part. Perhaps it was not meant to be controversial, and was a harmless joke. Regardless of what it was added into the game for, it was harmless, and any efforts to claim otherwise were just wrong. Basically, I guess I'm trying to draw a line between things like that that are in fact harmless regardless of context, and things like torture, which, depending on context, shouldn't be part of a GTA experience. Again, I won't know for sure until I actually play it.

To be honest, I'm not huge into GTA as a franchise. So I'm sorry if I misunderstand whether it's meaning to be edgy or just amusing. I just play the games and form my opinion based on what I see.

I simply am expressing my hope that the writing will back up torture in a way you said, that it's trying to call attention to it as being terrible and wrong, rather than being edgy/funny/whatever. Because some people (Greg Tito in particular) have found things like this weren't done well enough considering the time they have to flesh out the game's writing.

 

[Ticklefist]

Shitting into your mouth is good because it teaches you that shitting into your mouth is bad.

And that analogy would have value if Rockstar literally made the player torture a real person.

They didn't.

But yeah sure.

Whatever helps you miss the point.

 

[Caiphus]

The Last of Us had a torture scene... Did it receive this kind of backlash? I can't remember.

Perhaps I'm being forgetful, but I'm guessing it didn't. Now, maybe GTA's is done less tastefully, in which case the criticism might be warranted. But I have a feeling it also might be being blown out of proportion since the media/general non-gaming population tends to have a dodgy relationship with GTA at the best of times.

But whatever. Haven't played GTA V. It's not like this criticism is entiiirely limited to video games though. I know 24 was criticised for having torture scenes. Mostly because it glorified them as being patriotic.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Yes, and grand theft auto games in general would be "better" if we didn't shoot anyone but just played the guy that watches a guy shoot people because shooting people is wrong.

Seriously how can you argue that their torture scene is over the line when the game people call the "best in the series" (GTA SA) features a rape scene that's played up for laughs. The victim even does a few more jobs with the rapist.

People keep saying it's "blunt and crude" as if it would have been better if they made it nice and stylized like Saints row. It's supposed to be dark, dirty, and crude because it's a freaking torture scene.
You people saying that it should have been made less violent are missing the fact that doing that would remove the actual point of the torture scene, to make people that think they want to be the "bad guy" very uncomfortable.

How about you don't automatically attack anyone who feels something a game does is in bad taste. It is possible to like a game and still feel it gets a bit crude at points, you know. Just fyi.

 

[Strazdas]

Funny how Rockstar north can get away with a torture scene, but someone makes a mod where you can have sex and its a lawsuit they lost.

They got into trouble because the data was on the retail disk and Rockstar did not disclose its existence to the censor. There was a lot of media fuss over not much, but Rockstar did break the rules.

The torture scene was disclosed to the censor, so Rockstar haven't broken any rules by including it.

I didnt knew that, that does give it another perspective.
however instead of telling them to re-rate the game the judges decided Rockstar has to destroy all current copies and make ones without possibility to mod the game?

 

[Bellvedere]

I haven't played GTA V (or any GTA games...), though I'll happily weigh in with my general thoughts (I'd also be interested to know further details about GTA V since wikipedia isn't being very helpful).

I definitely think that confrontational scenes have their purpose to convey important messages and set serious tones. I can imagine it would be much more powerful in a playable scene in a videogame. So you know, I'm okay with the idea of realistic depictions of nasty stuff in video games for a reason(though somehow I've seemed to completely miss any torture scenes despite the numerous other examples people keep mentioning).

I also think how relevant such things are to the overall piece of media is very important too. So while I don't oppose confrontational scenes, just playing something for shock value or even worse publicity is offensive in it's own right. Saying torturing for information is ineffective is all well and good (if not a bit obvious by now), but if it's not part of a continuing theme, it isn't a strong component to any characterisation, and doesn't set any tones for the game, the message is somewhat irrelevant and I would be questioning the motive behind including it in a game.

As I said I haven't played this game so I'm unfamiliar with the overall plot. I'd actually be interested to know (should anyone still be reading the comments past page 2) if/how the messages shown in this mission are relevant to the rest of the game. The fact that the torturer still condones torture (just not for information) and makes a joke about it afterwards, is hardly mature handling of the subject matter and makes me a little dubious of a reason to include this mission beyond shock value...

I think there's also a debate here about what right consumers have to appreciate something on their own terms vs. the artists intentions. I mean, I read the end of a book first and I read chapters ahead of where I am. I skip scenes in movies and tv. I can listen to whatever songs (or bits of songs) I like from an album in any order that I fancy. While this certainly does have the potential to ruin whatever feel the artist was going for, as some people have said would be the case if this mission were skippable, I think accepting that people can/would prefer to enjoy and appreciate things in a different way and offering them the means to do that isn't a bad thing. Unless that mission was the entire and sole reason that GTA V was created, then I don't see a problem with it being optional.

Also the article linked was a bit unfair to amnesty by quoting other objectors who did so on the basis that kids play it (unless amnesty also made similar arguments that weren't stated). It's a pretty weak argument for an 18+ game...