CSI Takes On Grand Theft Auto 595
Tycoon Guy was one of many to write "Looks like another 20 million viewers will be fed the 'video games promote violence' story tonight. Today's CSI: Miami episode will feature a group of kids who are inspired to go on a city-wide crime spree by a game that looks suspiciously like Grand Theft Auto. From the description: 'Delko witnesses a bank robbery and the CSIs soon discover that the culprits are playing out the action from the videogame 'Urban Hellraisers' on the streets of Miami. As they score points for each crime committed, the CSIs must discover what consists of getting to the next level in the game in order to stop the culprits before they strike again.'"
They have all the right. (Score:2, Interesting)
Because gamers censoring CSI is in no way different from lawyers censoring GTA.
Not that surprising... (Score:4, Interesting)
(Sorry for the poor spelling.)
Re:They have all the right. (Score:3, Interesting)
Thats actually a really good point.
But we all know not to take television seriously, I mean, a writer would claim that you could hack 1024-bit encrypted RSA in 10 seconds to make sure the plot kept going.
The news makes it sound like "hackers" are at fault for all the ills of the computing world, when really most are just script kiddies exploiting cheap flaws in badly written software.
I've also heard that medical doctors and lawyers can't watch shows about their professions, and if watching the media's opinion of IT is any indication, I'd be inclined to believe it.
I can't speak for anyone else, but . . . (Score:5, Interesting)
While I neither rammed other people's cars nor pulled out a rocket launcher to teach the cop a lesson, I certainly KNOW that games can bleed into reality and if the person is just messed up enough in the head already, I don't doubt they could live out the game.
Clew #1: GTA is satire (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:pity (Score:2, Interesting)
I am not saying the effect will cause people to do certain actions; I am saying that you are now a (marginally) different person for watching the show, compared to if you didn't watch the show. You know, parallel universes, decisions, and stuff like that.
On a vaguely related note, med students (well, the ones I know) went to 'desensitization' classes. During this time, they watched movies of gross stuff; blood, surgery, accidents... You know, stuff that would make normal people faint, barf, hide, or maybe all three!
If watching that stuff didn't affect them, then there would be no point in doing it.
So, I am open to the idea that watching CSI / playing violent games may desensitize you to the subject.
On another tangent, I do like the idea of someone making a video game where you play a CSI... It could be a GTA mod! Then, play online, and if you prove someone else is guilty... they get kicked! Ha ha!
Re:This isn't a problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Well sadly, TV episodes based on activities that happen elsewhere in *reality*, aren't always true to the way it really happens and even go so far as to completely misrepresent the way things are. Take for instance the recent episode of Law and Order: Criminal Intent (5/8/05) that included a bit on geocaching [geocaching.com] that misrepresented it as cache containers being buried and requiring a shovel to retrieve.
geocaching.com (the largest of the cache listing services) had to post something about it on the main page because of all the parks districts that might become offended if they believed that cachers were out in the woods with shovels:
Geocaching was featured on Law & Order: Criminal Intent this evening, May 8. Contrary to the creative license taken by the show's writers, we strictly do not list caches that are buried.
The TV shows will take whatever liberties they can to make it sell well, regardless of the possibile outcomes for those that actually partake in the *real world* activities.
It's "Beck 2: Spår i Mörker" all over ag (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Will they continue to be Politically Correct? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, there are some causes for concern... (Score:5, Interesting)
Consider a jury: 12 people too stupid(*) to get out of jury selection wonder why the scientific evidence is so bad. They compare it with what "scientists" say on CSI with all the flashy graphics that seem so convincing, and conclude that the real evidence is not compelling. Reasonable doubt surfaces and joe bad-guy walks.
One of my father's friends is a reasonably-high-ranking policeman back in the UK, and there is a genuine concern that people's expectations of phorensic evidence is being pushed too high by programs like this.
Here's a use for 'mythbusters' - get them to take a CSI show's flashy effects, and then compare to the real world... Some points:
CSI is a fantasy - an enjoyable fantasy, but a fantasy nonetheless. Just once it would be nice if their technological approach failed (the database was wrong, the drivers licence pointed them in the wrong direction, etc.) but no, they're perfect. It would be nice if fingerprints were shown to be not 100% accurate [cbsnews.com] as well (it might trigger some debate!)
Simon
(*) I don't really think jurors are all stupid, some of them are true servants of the state, but some of them... sheesh.
Chicken or the egg (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: Reconstructing images from low-res samples (Score:3, Interesting)
What would be really cool is if the crew of one of these shows was smart/interested enough to actually produce "enhanced" camera shots as they would look coming out of one of these experimental image reconstruction algorithms. You know, crazy mis-prediction artifacts, blocking, pseudocolor, hokey text overlays. Heck, go nuts and have the reconstructed license plate have a character that could be an 8 (40%) or a B (60%).
Doing this would cost the producers almost nothing, greatly increase the versimilitude of the show, and make us geeks feel good. I won't hold my breath.
Re:I can't speak for anyone else, but . . . (Score:3, Interesting)
This is the lamest of the three anyway. (Score:2, Interesting)
Bad season for CSI (Score:5, Interesting)
Within 2 minutes they pulled out a fucking tricorder and I turned it off.
I complained about the image enhancements for years.
I complained about pseudo-science for years.
Star Trek tech is just too much.
All CSI's are off my (short) list of watchable TV now.
Wrong!!! (Score:1, Interesting)
It would be hard for me to re-create the environment of goodfellas or scarface to trigger a situation where a violent response is caused by me previous exposure to the movie violence. Holding a real gun after many hours wielding one indescriminently in a video game could cause an already unstable perdon to step over the edge, however.
Notice that I say 'already unstable'!!! I'm not claiming that violent VG's make killers of choirboys, but that a kid from a bad or no family and social adjustment issues can get de-sensitized to the repercussions of the violence (after repeated game playing), making them more likely to snap as oppopsed to a similar kid with no violent game play history.
Flame Away...
Re:Eh... so what? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Four years ago, Bhutan, the fabled Himalayan Shangri-la, became the last nation on earth to introduce television. Suddenly a culture, barely changed in centuries, was bombarded by 46 cable channels. And all too soon came Bhutan's first crime wave - murder, fraud, drug offences."
I wonder (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Well, there are some causes for concern... (Score:3, Interesting)
Several months ago, a Canadian radio program brought in some "experts" from law enforcement and the legal profession. The problem as they describe is not that the evidence is faulty, it's that the expectations of evidence is elevated, and what is considered "reasonable" in "reasonable doubt" is blown out of proportion.
Jurors begin playing lawyer, asking for evidence and trails of evidence to ensure that there was no logical possibilty that the evidence was tainted. They'll also ask for DNA evidence, fingerprinting, bloodsplattering, balistics, etc. when it is inappropriate. They'll raise the possibility of police mishandling of evidence if all these various techniques are not being used... obviously there *must* be a cover-up if there's no detailed balistics report, or if the body wasn't autopsied.
The defense lawyer should be making these cases, they are in a better position to understand the limits of what is reasonable. Admittedly, it makes their job easy when reasonable doubt becomes unreasonable, but it's gotten bad enough to slow down and cause problems for jury selection.
I can't bear to watch CSI. It's not even fiction, it's pure fantasy.
Re:Well, there are some causes for concern... (Score:1, Interesting)
Because kids are smarter than adults.
(And I am not joking. In many ways, it's true)
Re:Well, there are some causes for concern... (Score:1, Interesting)
As Dennis Miller says (more or less) the only way you can get on a jury is to prove beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt that you do not know shit about the case you're about to help decide. They want easily led, uninformed sheeple on juries. They don't want people with a moral code, or strong opinions, because they can't be sure they'll be able to influence them in their direction. Consequently the vast majority of jurors are morons.
It depends on the state and the severity of the case. In Massachusetts, unless you can show cause why you can't be impartial, you are eligible to be a juror. Each lawyer gets to remove three potential jurors without cause, and that's it. I suppose you could lie and claim that you believe that all accused people are guilty or that you don't trust (insert ethnicity of defendant), but I would stay away from perjury if my goal is to get out of a courtroom...
Re: Reconstructing images from low-res samples (Score:2, Interesting)
One of my favorite scenes from Monk involved an "enhanced" image.