GTA IV Trailer Inflames Big Apple Politicians

GP writes "The GTA4 trailer isn't 48 hours old yet, but NYC politicians are up in arms because the game's setting, Liberty City, is a virtual version of the Big Apple." Obviously these guys never played GTA3, since it was also set in the "fictional" Liberty City, that also felt a lot like NYC.

Up in arms?

[EveryNickIsTaken]

They're not up in arms. Some uppity reporter went to the Mayor and the council and said, "Hey, Grand Theft Auto is set in NYC. What's your response?" And neither reponse was particularly vitriolic. Much ado about nothing.

Thank Goodness...

[FREAKHEAD]

...that we have movies that only reflect the great qualities of that city. If movies showed violence, cop killing, etc in N.Y., I am sure we would see equal outrage.

Re:Safest?

[TodMinuit]

Chicago is a much nicer, safer, cleaner and just better city than New York. Notice that game makers don't generally use it.

That's because Chicago has something New York has long forgotten: Class. In Chicago, crime isn't spilling onto the streets. It's locked away in the Government itself.

If you wanted to set a crime game in Chicago, it'd have to be about stealing election votes, selling illegal drivers licenses, and collecting kick backs from major Government projects. The final mission would be to break into Meigs Field at 2AM and illegally destroy the runways (using tax-payer funded crews, no less).

In some places, it's called the mafia. In Chicago, it's called the Government.

Re:Safest?

[sumdumass]

You can thank former mayor juliani (however it is spelled)for that.

I remember going into NYC back in the early 90's and it was scary. You could see a difference after he became mayor and this difference was more rvident the more the news stations complained about him. I guess he created a floating precinct idea were an entire police station was mobile and could be located where ever the need for extra enforcement popped up in less then 24 hours.

He was also accused of many civil rights violations and such but I think the real turning point was that some criminals were only opportunists and once the likelihood of getting caught was there, they passed on this opportunity.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Safest?

[badasscat]

You can thank former mayor juliani (however it is spelled)for that.

Crime was dropping before Giuliani took office. And it's dropped faster under Bloomberg than it did under Giuliani.

Crime dropped *nationwide* while Giuliani was in office, largely as a result of Bill Clinton's initiatives in both crime prevention (through educational programs, etc.) and in enforcement (100,000 new officers nationwide for community policing, of which about 5,000 ended up in NYC - that's 5,000 cops walking the beat that the city never had before, and Giuliani had nothing to do with them).

I guess he created a floating precinct idea were an entire police station was mobile and could be located where ever the need for extra enforcement popped up in less then 24 hours.

There's no such thing as a "floating precinct". William Bratton and his lieutenants came up with most of the ideas that lowered crime, but the two biggest things that you can credit from an enforcement standpoint are just those 5,000 extra cops and the computerized COMPSTAT crime tracking system that was both devised and implemented by deputy commissioner Jack Maple.

Since 9/11, Giuliani gets credit for way too many things that he had little or nothing to do with. Most New Yorkers did not like him in the waning days of his mayoralty, and most credited Bratton and Clinton more with the reduction in crime than Giuliani. (I'm not sure if you can still find old gallup polls anywhere, but the polls did reflect that.)

And how did Giuliani repay Bratton for his hard work? By asking for his resignation and hiring Bernard Kerik, a personal friend with ties to the mafia, to replace him.

You're going to be hearing about this a lot more if Giuliani presses ahead with his presidential campaign.

Re:Safest?

[benzapp]

No, not really. There are many Hispanic neighborhoods that have similar income demographics but are generally safer.

The materialistic view of crime worked well in the 1960s when the US was 90% white and 5% black with everyone else mixed in.

Today, it's a different story. The story of the criminality of the American Negro is unique and irrespective of wealth. There are many hispanic neighborhoods which are significantly more safe, despite having similar income demographics. The same is true for many asian neighborhoods, whether they be orientals, south asians, or even slavs/turkic peoples.

What I'm saying is that you're clearly a suburban white boy who has been taught by teachers who grew up in the 1960s. You've never really spent time in a multiethnic city in the US and noticed how EVERYONE avoids black neighborhoods, except for black people themselves.