Shockstar Games

Article - Stevie questions the ethos of a certain game publisher...

Public perception generally equates the life of a true (stereotypical) rock star as being something akin to a roller coaster ride of fame and fortune, an envied existence largely consisting of negative press and focused criticism, all of it surrounding an incessant stream of profit-lined controversy that often exists separately from any marketable product said 'star' happens to create. Moreover, the tired cliches of music industry profiling decree that copious amounts of Class-A drugs, meaningless sex, foul-mouthed conduct, wanton property destruction, and the occasional death and/or suicide in suspicious circumstances, is an all-but guaranteed blueprint for blazing glory and eventual self-destruction. Scant few music industry rock stars are able to survive and prosper amid such an abusive professional and personal lifestyle (read: Keith Richards), with most buckling pathetically beneath the resultant pressures of their own attention-seeking actions. Yet, those capable of shouldering the burden of relentless media attention, and the wide-ranging critical scrutiny that comes with it, are also able to cleverly align themselves with the overhanging shadow of controversy so that, oddly, it only ever adds to their success and rarely leaves a permanent blemish on their often-sordid history. Meet Rockstar Games.

The Rockstar Games label, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., was founded in 1998 with a view to creating "the most innovative and progressive interactive entertainment" in videogames. Whether that boldly ambitious mission statement (which can be found in variation on all videogame studio Websites) has been achieved is a matter for fervent discussion. Somewhat bizarrely, however, that discussion, be it between two game-loving friends, or an anti-gaming activist and a videogames rating panel, rarely focuses on the actual merits of Rockstar Games' expanding softography where 'innovation' and 'progression' are concerned. While few would argue that Rockstar's amassed portfolio has birthed hugely successful releases in terms of critical acclaim and consumer sales, there are those who see the studio's active pursuit of a potentially dangerous association with controversy as an unseemly blight on the entire videogames industry.

The history of Rockstar Games has thus-far been defined by the long-standing Grand Theft Auto series, itself a controversial gaming catalogue that has attracted high-profile condemnation from certain quarters since its late '90s emergence as a rather simplistic - and morally questionable - 2D top-down adventure on the PC and PlayStation. More specifically, when the steal-any-vehicle mission-based gameplay of GTA shifted into full 3D immersion with 2001's Grand Theft Auto III, the sound of outraged knife sharpening was almost as prevalent as the ringing checkouts and deserved critical praise. The power of GTA III's free-roaming 3D presentation and engrossingly acted storyline brought with it a significantly more visceral level of environmental and situational authenticity, and the resulting blood-spattered gun clashes with pursuing police units - not to mention a violent disregard for innocent bystanders - meant that it wasn't long before Rockstar Games and Grand Theft Auto became synonymously linked with reprehensible in-game behaviour and morally misleading encouragement toward its audience.

As mature and sensible game players, it's down to individual choice and sound judgment as to whether we acknowledge or dismiss Rockstar's (and Take-Two's) label as being responsible for creating and releasing a "murder simulator" unto the masses - as one Miami-based lawyer and videogame activist has oft chimed with regard to Grand Theft Auto. Yet, therein lies the problem, and perhaps reveals Rockstar for being primarily concerned with blindly stirring the bubbling pot of controversy in order to reap the media-fuelled profits that will surely follow. Ultimately, younger gamers - by default - are not always mature and sensible, and their choices are not always built on sound judgment, but rather the 'must have' knee jerk mentality that possesses them when advised, cautioned, or instructed against anything labeled beyond their age range. We've all been there as minors; under-aged kids not allowed into the restricted scary film, not allowed to order alcohol in a bar, and not allowed to purchase the 'M for Mature' videogame...and we've all done whatever was necessary to sneak into the movie theatre, fool the bar staff, and secure that latest all-important blood soaked gaming title.

Despite venomous accusations and several (failed) lawsuits, can Grand Theft Auto, a mere videogame, be held accountable for contributing to real-life atrocities, such as the 2003 murder of two Alabama police officers and a civilian dispatcher by the then 18-year-old GTA fan Devin Moore? Moore, who was being booked at an Alabama police station on suspicion of carjacking (the core motivational appeal of GTA), shot and killed his three victims before fleeing the murder scene in a squad car. The Associated Press reported that, after being recaptured, Moore simply offered that, "Life is a videogame. Everybody's got to die sometime." The teenage cop killer was subsequently found guilty on three counts of murder and sentenced to death by lethal injection, while Rockstar and Take-Two dodged the bullet of responsibility when the jury rejected the defendant's plea that he was not guilty due to mental defects brought on by excessive GTA play and an abusive childhood.

So, by and large, the American courts say 'no' regarding videogame accountability, but in the US, where it's still not illegal for retailers to sell an 'M for Mature' title to a minor, the mighty Bill of Rights' First Amendment of free speech protects videogame releases from banning, and the Second Amendment protects the country's rampant gun culture in its "right to bear arms", perhaps Rockstar could better serve the industry and its consumers by not repeatedly peddling game content that surely must, in one way or another, filter some semblance of influence down to pockets of its audience. For example, outside the apparent advocating of carjacking, premeditated murder, cop killing, drug trafficking, assault and burglary, it's hard to conceive that certain young (male) videogame players trawling through Grand Theft Auto would not subsequently feel a lack of respect for the opposite sex after opting to engage in car-bound intercourse with an in-game prostitute before then choosing to beat her to death with a baseball bat in favour of actually paying for the sordid transaction. The inclusion of the act itself into the gameplay is arguably disgraceful enough, but finalising the deal with murder goes well beyond what should be deemed acceptable in our videogames.

And, although Grand Theft Auto is famous as Rockstar's most prized asset, and is looked upon as a veritable license to print money whenever its latest hugely popular incarnation hits retail shelves, its criticisms continue to gather pace. Of those, the most notable remains the lawsuit(s) brought before Rockstar for its 'Hot Coffee' mod-accessed sexual mini-game, which appeared in 2005's Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas on the PC. Beyond GTA, the company has also suffered negative exposure and activist campaigning against 2006's schoolyard-based Bully (cannily renamed as Canis Canem Edit) and, more specifically, the recent homosexual boy-on-boy content that emerged from its gameplay. Bully - for all the pre-release furore regarding its childhood influence - was a mildly violent title in comparison to GTA, and even saw some laying claim to its values in portraying a message of anti-violence. Yet there's still little doubt that Rockstar actively channels the monumental discourse that its games inspire and benefits hugely as a result.

And, although the main focus of Rockstar's mounting criticism remains firmly embedded in its GTA franchise, and is more than likely to spark anew when Grand Theft Auto IV is released on next-generation formats later this year, it's actually the company's recent unveiling of Manhunt 2 that particularly rankles where the accusations of shameless controversy courting are concerned. For those unfamiliar with the original Manhunt, it was released to the PlayStation 2 in late 2003 and was swiftly met with widespread condemnation due to its extremely violent content; though, that said, the condemnation thrust upon Manhunt - as always - hailed from outside the videogames industry. In terms of critical reception, review publications such as renowned taskmasters Edge magazine and the Official PS2 Magazine graced the game with an 8/10 and a 9/10 respectively.