Gangsta status revoked

The seminar paper for the class I'm taking is a (comparative) rhetorical analysis, which is fun because I just asked my 101 class to write a comparative rhetorical analysis. My paper is going to be about GTA IV and Saints Row 2, but I asked my class to compare two different media so they could really focus on how the media affects the message. Their papers are due at 5 p.m. today, so I'll soon know if they were successful.

My paper is due April 20^th, so I still have some time, and I'm going to use this blog entry (primarily) to tease out some of the issues that I'll deal with.

So, my plan in this paper is to say something like, "GTA IV glorifies violence and criminal activity, but Saints Row 2 is a satire of video games that do just that." By the way, both games are gang- or crime-based, open-world, third-person action games.

My paper situation reminds me of that episode of Arrested Development in which Ann and George Michael protest at the house of the creator of Desperate Housewives, Marc Cherry, because they think it presents a negative view of American values (or some such thing). Cherry comes out of his house and yells at the protesters that his show is a satire, so they shouldn't be protesting it. In the same way, Saints Row 2 doesn't deserve protesting.

But, it has been thrown under the same proverbial bus as the GTA games. At the very end of that article (which shows its importance), THQ claims that its game "is not a gang simulation game. It's a tongue-in-cheek game." So, I suppose I'll be trying to prove that statement's validity by examining the rhetoric of the game.

I'm particularly interested in the realism of each game. It seems to me that if Saints Row 2 is a tongue-in-cheek game, then it wouldn't want to be very realistic; it would exaggerate certain aspects of its lampoon target to get its satire across more effectively. Realism in video games is still being defined, but I don't find it particularly realistic to see gangsters committing insurance fraud by intentionally hurting themselves or, my personal favorite, lowering the real estate value of certain rival neighborhoods by spraying sewage from a septic truck around said neighborhoods. In my mind, these aren't the sorts of realistic activities that video game players are supposedly trying to mimic in real life.

Speaking of mimicking games in real life, some guy in Thailand allegedly killed a taxi driver and stole his cab and claimed that he did it to see how easy it would be to steal a cab in real life, something he'd accomplished pretty easily in GTA IV. The game was subsequently banned in Thailand. So, my argument for this paper (in its current form) is that GTA IV encourages this sort of behavior, while Saints Row 2 makes fun of it.

One of the most time-consuming aspects of this project will be playing through these games again. I'm going to need a lot of textual examples, which means I'll need to go back through with a fine-toothed comb, so to speak. I especially need to get back through some or all of the story-mode missions, since it's been almost a year since I played through GTA IV's story. At the time, it was lauded as one of the better video game stories to date. I mostly remember that you have to choose between saving your cousin's or your girlfriend's life at the end of the game.

More recently, I've been playing through GTA: Chinatown Wars on DS. I'd say it falls closer to the Saints Row 2 end of the spectrum, as far as seriousness is concerned. That's probably, in part, a necessity of the platform, considering DS graphics are still very sprite-like, so it's hard to really peg realism. But Chinatown Wars also boasts a sarcastic and aware protagonist that tends to point out the silliness of the over-the-top gangster-style aspects of this game. He's always noticing how predictable and stereotypically gangster his missions are. This sort of awareness really points to the underlying clichés of the genre. Still a fun game though.

Anyhow, the NCAA tournament is still going strong. My brackets are probably technically "busted," though I'm not sure where that threshold lies, but I'm still on top of my pool with 12 out of 16 teams for the Sweet Sixteen (though I've already lost a Final Four team in Washington). I had a very strange feeling this morning when I woke up and realized that the tournament is on hiatus for about 4 days. I was really more depressed than I would have expected. I don't know how I'm going to deal with April through November. I suppose baseball, but we'll see.

I mentioned last week that I wasn't a real fan of last Sunday's episode of Family Guy. It turns out this week's episode wasn't much better. Both episodes took considerable liberties in repeating old Family Guy jokes. Family Guy has always been a heavily referential show, which I've always appreciated, but I don't think it should reference itself so much, at least not in its current manner. They're repeating jokes that were really only funny because they were shocking and unexpected. The second time around, those jokes are just frustrating and boring. I'm actually starting to like American Dad more than Family Guy.

Speaking of "Animation Domination," which I like to call "Animation Donimation:" Fox finally showed Sunday viewers a glimpse of Sit Down, Shut Up, Mitch Hurwitz's new project, last night. I don't know if I could be more excited about a show. I'm less excited, of course, that King of the Hill is coming to an end. The good(e) news is that Mike Judge animated shows shouldn't be off-air for too long.

One more note, I need to give some propers to Austin for his SECU Member of the Week status. Finally.

QotD:

Where do you hold member of the week status?

My take: Ozzie's life. I've been spending a lot more time working at home lately, and Ozzie seems to enjoy my company.