Killing 'incited by video game' [Archive]

Blue Velvet

Jul 29, 2004, 01:22 PM

yellow

Jul 29, 2004, 01:35 PM

Yes. It's a new low in games.

The premise is a convict (you) is put to death in prison. Somehow, the convict (you) is revived by some bizarre shadowy (god-like? come on) figure called The Director. The convict (you) is then cast in a weird snuff film that is something akin to "The Running Man". Kill or be killed. Use anything handy.

While I find this game abhorrent, the game comes with a M-rating (in the US at least), so supposedly no one can purchase it if they aren't over 18. This would require a parent, and hopefully they would be involved enough to wonder just what the hell they are purchasing.

And if a 17 year old cannot tell the difference between fantasy and reality, then the game cannot be solely to blame. Hopefully by the time you hit 17 years of age, you would know the difference between "right & wrong".

strider42

Jul 29, 2004, 01:40 PM

News here in the UK.

Within a few hours, some leading retailers announced they would no longer be stocking the game (apparently the only game banned in New Zealand)

Story here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1271302,00.html

I've never seen this game, let alone played it... has anybody out there played it?

My roommate had this game. It looked OK, no big deal. When you kill people in it, it changes to a movie type scene, you don't really control it. If anyone relaly thinks someone killed someone because of a video game, I think they are missing the obvious, that the person still has a choice in what they do. Seeing something and doing it are too different things. I really didn't think the game was that over the top from what I saw. As a game, it was grounded within a real story at least, as opposed to fighting games where the object is merely to fight for the sake of it. Those are the games that I think kids are more likely to immitate (I mean, I can remember as a kid trying WWF wrestling moves on my little brother and things like that).

Quote from the article: "I think that I heard some of Warren's friends say that he was obsessed with this game" Hmmm, thank that might be the problem and not the game itself. I think so. If this game never existed, do you really think someone so obivously psychiotic would not have killed someone. What kind of defense is "i saw a guy in a video game bludgeon someone to death, so I thought I'd try it" This wasn't a 7 year old either. This kid was old enough to know exactly what he was doing and the consequences of it. Maybe his parents should have been paying more attention to his interests.

Blue Velvet

Jul 29, 2004, 01:57 PM

edesignuk

Jul 29, 2004, 02:02 PM

... the tabloid press (locally more powerful than the US popular press) tend to jump on the bandwagon, and before you know it...

Questions in Parliament (it's happened about iPod batteries (?!)), moral outrage, kneejerk responses, hurried legislation, etc.Exactly, our wonderful tabloids jump on anything going because they have nothing better to talk about.

No one kills someone because of a video game, end of.

robbieduncan

Jul 29, 2004, 02:03 PM

Right, it's time to make it clear to the kneejerk chains that they will loose business over this attempt at censorship. If you live in the UK go into your local Dixons and ask for a copy of the game. When they tell you that they won't sell it register your disgust and walk out.

As notes this is really the fault of the parents of the killer. Why did they allow their 17 year old child access to a game that was certified for 18 year olds and above only. It would appear the Rockstar North have taken all responsible steps to ensure that this game is not sold to children. There is obviously a market demand for more adult games and they have filled it. Have we learnt nothing from the past. The same arguments were put forward over the so called "video nasties" in the past.

Blue Velvet

Jul 29, 2004, 02:21 PM

...Why did they allow their 17 year old child access to a game that was certified for 18 year olds and above only.

Do you think that if he'd been a year older this wouldn't have happened?

iGav

Jul 29, 2004, 02:24 PM

Maybe his parents should have been paying more attention to his interests.

Exactly... unfortunately we're developing a 'pass the buck' culture here in the UK where some parents seemingly don't recognise their social responsibilities as parents, with many being prepared to blame everything their children does on someone or something else ANYTHING other than themselves, whether it be videos, video games or boredom and the well worn "there's nothing for our little Johnny to do on our estate" after the sh*t bag has mugged, stolen or set fire to someone or someone elses property. :rolleyes: :mad:

krimson

Jul 29, 2004, 02:26 PM

that's right, blame everything on video games.. it's not like there weren't people killed with hammers before Manhunt came out. :p

iGav

Jul 29, 2004, 02:27 PM

Do you think that if he'd been a year older this wouldn't have happened?

That's not the point... we should consider what else these so called parents have allowed him to do in the past to get to 17 years of age and not be able to decipher what is real, and what is a 'game'.

robbieduncan

Jul 29, 2004, 02:28 PM

Do you think that if he'd been a year older this wouldn't have happened?

I understand what you are saying. Unfortunately I would have to say that this guy seems to have been the sort of deranged maniac that would probably have done this sort of thing sooner or later. My point is that, as usual, the parents are trying to claim that someone else is responsible for the actions of their children and disclaim the responsibilities and obligations of parenthood.

I personally find the whole argument to be very suspect. There have been thousands (probably tens of thousands of copies) of this game sold in the UK. There has been exactly 1 murder. That looks like a statistical non-entity. If we were looking at this with out heads instead of our hearts we would say that there is no statistical link between this game and killing.

It's just like Marlyn Manson being blamed for the Columbine shootings.

Blue Velvet

Jul 29, 2004, 02:37 PM

Thought it was an interesting piece and wanted to find out whether other Forum Members had played or seen this game...

It's a far too complex argument to air here.
(although Manhunt doesn't sound like my thing...)

iGav

Jul 29, 2004, 02:45 PM

Thought it was an interesting piece and wanted to find out whether other Forum Members had played or seen this game...

I have... but I'm not actually a big fan of these kind of games, I prefer the driver ones. ;)

I'll ask my mum next time I speak to her to see what she thinks, she's a gamer, well versed in all these type of games. :eek: :p parents eh'! :p

krimson

Jul 29, 2004, 02:47 PM

Really? :eek:

can we swap moms? ;)

iGav

Jul 29, 2004, 03:40 PM

Really? :eek:

Yep... she bought a PlayStation 2 last year, after she became addicted to the original PlayStation I gave here a couple of years ago.

She's completed Driver, Driver 2, GTA 3, GTA Vice City, Starsky and Hutch, Max Payne, London Racer 2, The Getaway and Crazy Taxi, all without cheats as well, which is kind of freaky! She says she's going to get Driv3r soon, and I'll probably be buying GTA San Andreas for her Christmas pressie, if it's out by then.

She from the old school as well, having actually owned consoles since the late '70's (Binatone), through the Atari explosion (she still holds the out right Centipede record in our family) heheheh.

krimson

Jul 29, 2004, 03:43 PM

Wow, you can tell her im very impressed! I haven't even played half the games on that list :)
but im more of a RPG kinda guy ;)

robbieduncan

Jul 29, 2004, 03:47 PM

Yep... she bought a PlayStation 2 last year, after she became addicted to the original PlayStation I gave here a couple of years ago.

She's completed Driver, Driver 2, GTA 3, GTA Vice City, Starsky and Hutch, Max Payne, London Racer 2, The Getaway and Crazy Taxi, all without cheats as well, which is kind of freaky! She says she's going to get Driv3r soon, and I'll probably be buying GTA San Andreas for her Christmas pressie, if it's out by then.

She from the old school as well, having actually owned consoles since the late '70's (Binatone), through the Atari explosion (she still holds the out right Centipede record in our family) heheheh.

Pretty cool! I'm amazed she could manage to complete The Getaway. I hated that game. Rubbish controls, bad missions, missing roads and unskippable 30 minute cut scenes. To say it sucked doesn't even cover it!

wdlove

Jul 29, 2004, 09:24 PM

Censorship isn't a good idea. What is needed is parent involvement. When I grew up my parents knew exactly what I was doing at all times.

virividox

Jul 29, 2004, 09:42 PM

rockstar makes great games. i love killing, robbing, stealing cars, blowing things up. but i dont do that in real life. come one people, for someone to take things in a game and apply it in real life, the game isnt the only problem in their life; maybe the game gave ideas of how to kill, but hey i watch the life style channel to get ideas how to decorate; media influences but its still a choice to act. if your 17 year old cant make a proper choice then im sorry you have failed as parents

Sun Baked

Jul 29, 2004, 09:52 PM

iGav

Jul 30, 2004, 07:01 AM

Pretty cool! I'm amazed she could manage to complete The Getaway. I hated that game. Rubbish controls, bad missions, missing roads and unskippable 30 minute cut scenes. To say it sucked doesn't even cover it!

You can skip the scenes... :confused: or that's maybe after you've completed it and play again??? hmmmm.... I shall have to ask her next time I speak to her. I found the cars frustratingly slow with unrealistic handling, but loved the concept all in all. So I understand The Getaway 2 is supposed to incorporate more GTA style stuff, should be tight!

She was a big fan of the original Driver series, and bought a PS2 because of 'The Getaway', her friend lent her a copy of her sons GTA Vice City and she's not looked back.

sonyrules

Jul 30, 2004, 07:10 AM

Now i have played that game, and it is preety brutal, and fun i might say, But For someone to go out and do something like that. People have to know its wrong, And besides, How did the kid get the game? and where were the parents? Game companies should not be liable for stuff like this, On the case, it says 18+. Time for the parents to step up to the ball plate

MongoTheGeek

Jul 30, 2004, 08:14 AM

This is just someone's idea of blaming somebody else for the mistakes they make.

It's typical in the US justice system for the criminal to instantly become a victim and blame somebody else in an effort to reduce the sentence.

Red Rum, Red Rum, the voices/game/tv/preacher/music/etc. made me do it. :rolleyes:

I figure whoever brought up the video game is either planning a run for elected office or is getting a kickback from some plaintiff attorney weasel who wants to sue Rockstar

stevehaslip

Jul 30, 2004, 09:09 AM

whoever does anything in real life because they did it in a computer game has something wrong with them. is crazy! but we can't refuse to sell games like this to unstable people because besides the odd nervous twitch you can't tell who is mental and who isnt! The only way around it is if we only played games like pong (not bashing it, its class!) where there isnt any level of realism.

WAIT!!! I'm being beaten by my brother! he has a giant plank of wood in his hand!!! PONG IS EVIL!!! IT MADE HIM DO IT!!!!

^see how ridiculous it is to blame computer games? its not like they have a how to kill someone guide in them is it?

zoetropeuk

Jul 30, 2004, 09:26 AM

What I loved was, when they interviewed the mother she said her son and the victim were addicted to the game and spent hours playing it everyday.

"Hhhhmmm, my son is locking himself in his room with a friend who's 3 years younger and they're playing a violent computer game for hours at a time. Yeah, that's pretty normal behaviour, I'm sure it won't have any effect on them."

Why on earth didn't she stop him from playing it if she thought it was wrong. She obvioulsy didn't care what her son was doing until it was too late. I blame the mother in this case, surely if this happened in the US then she would be charged as well. I'm not saying she should be charged but why blame and punish Rockstar when the mother should have realised their was a problem.

musicpyrite

Jul 30, 2004, 01:52 PM

Every one is always looking for someone to blame because of their own insecurities.

I blame it on the parents. :D

crachoar

Jul 30, 2004, 02:45 PM

Ari_0

Aug 1, 2004, 10:19 AM

Exactly... unfortunately we're developing a 'pass the buck' culture here in the UK where some parents seemingly don't recognise their social responsibilities as parents, with many being prepared to blame everything their children does on someone or something else ANYTHING other than themselves, whether it be videos, video games or boredom and the well worn "there's nothing for our little Johnny to do on our estate" after the sh*t bag has mugged, stolen or set fire to someone or someone elses property. :rolleyes: :mad:

I agree wholeheartedly. The problem with teenage mothers or any other irresponisble parents is that they just don't get it. Parenting is not a right, it is a privelage. :mad:

Parents: Games don't kill people, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE

themadchemist

Aug 1, 2004, 07:25 PM

Maybe video games can set things off, but there's gotta be something wrong with you in the first place (psychologically) just to go kill someone, especially for no apparent reason.

edesignuk

Aug 1, 2004, 07:28 PM

"Hhhhmmm, my son is locking himself in his room with a friend who's 3 years younger and they're playing a violent computer game for hours at a time. Yeah, that's pretty normal behaviour, I'm sure it won't have any effect on them."Kids have been locking themselves up in their rooms with a mate playing violent video games for years, nothing unusual in that.

Kyle?

Aug 1, 2004, 09:18 PM

I feel that censorship is a societal responsibility, not a governmental one. Parents, relatives, friends, neighbors, all share the responsibility of making sure children do not screw up their's, or others, lives.

That said, it's hard to understand how people say video games do not affect you. It's pyschological conditioning. You're living in a reality that is not real. You try to escape from true reality to one that you don't have to worry about societal constraints. Such escapism is unhealthy in that you do not learn how to work with society but fight against it. Of course you're not completely transformed by what you watch, but you can't help but be affected. Everything we take in affects our view of the world and the way we behave. To think you are not affected by your environment, especially what you choose to take in, is extremely naive. The US army uses doom for precisely that purpose, to make something that would be horrifying for most people into a routine. Soldiers aren't prone to murder because of their training, but they have to deal with their altered perspective when in civilian life.

Sol

Aug 2, 2004, 01:56 AM

Games that contain ultra-violence are a good thing. They provide a means to express anger without harming anyone in real life. Players control the in-game avatar, not the other way around.

Nermal

Aug 2, 2004, 04:03 AM

Here (http://www.jetstreamgames.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=46665) are some more thoughts on this. I personally think it's stupid.

johnnowak

Aug 2, 2004, 04:59 AM

In all fairness, few mothers are even capable of thinking their kid could flip out and kill people. I'm not saying she's guiltless... perhaps other parenting crap caused the boy to grow up with no morals. More likely though, it was a chemical imbalance or something similar. I'm sure the mother is going through enough grief as it is... she doesn't need the whole internet saying she's responsible for her kid killing someone.

As for Manhunt... I bought it and sold it a week later. What a boring game.

johnnowak

Aug 2, 2004, 05:01 AM

Kids have been locking themselves up in their rooms with a mate playing violent video games for years, nothing unusual in that.

Exactly. Hell, I did that when I was younger, and no one is dead... well, no one important anyway.

Honesty though, its not ALWAYS the parents' fault.

MacFan26

Aug 2, 2004, 05:12 AM

Seriously, when are they going to stop blaming the video games? If the guy had something he wasn't supposed to have, it's not the programmers fault. If someone attempts walking on water, and they drown, do people blame the Bible?

This reminds me of a quote someone said about the content of a book: "That raises of course the question: what are artists to do? Tailor their writing so that it's immune to the actions of madmen? We can't do that." Banning violent games is only a form of censorship.

That being said, I'm a pretty big fan of video games, but I think some of the violence is just unnecessary. Do people really need that to have fun playing a game?

Kyle?

Aug 2, 2004, 07:16 AM

This reminds me of a quote someone said about the content of a book: "That raises of course the question: what are artists to do? Tailor their writing so that it's immune to the actions of madmen? We can't do that." Banning violent games is only a form of censorship.

I'm not really sure how you consider some of that rubbish art. Art edifies the observer, it has a meaning and intention for the benefit of society. This self-gratifying express-my-own-inner-turmoil nonsense is not art. Anybody can splash paint on a canvas or create some lame video game or film, or throw a sequence of words together. An artist gives it worthwhile meaning.

And, yes, banning games is censorship. Which is not a bad thing, as long as the government is not involved. Parents and close, trusted adult figures should use censorship more often.

Sol, your suggestion that violent video games prevent real-life violence is disturbing. If you have such a rage bottled within you, you would be much better off dealing with your anger issues head-on than just expressing them in a violent game. You won't always have a game to release your anger, and it's much healthier to just deal with it anyway.

Sol

Aug 2, 2004, 07:35 AM

Sol, your suggestion that violent video games prevent real-life violence is disturbing. If you have such a rage bottled within you, you would be much better off dealing with your anger issues head-on than just expressing them in a violent game. You won't always have a game to release your anger, and it's much healthier to just deal with it anyway.

Anger is one thing and rage is quite another. My suggestion is that video games can be used as a means of externalising anger in a harmless way. Dealing with the issues that make us angry is not always practical or possible. For example, if I was frustrated by something that happened to me at work it would not be wise to confront anyone about it while I was still angry. I would have to cool down and clear my head before dealing with the problem the next day. Tearing Sub-Zero's head off his body would be a good laugh under those circumstances and by the time I switch off the console I would be a relatively calm and somewhat relieved human being. My anger would have been expressed withing the space of the video game and not in the office.

MongoTheGeek

Aug 2, 2004, 08:39 AM

Blue Velvet

Aug 2, 2004, 01:52 PM

Anyone remember the same paranoia surrounding D&D 20 years ago?

The same thing happened 500 years ago when someone killed there best friend after seeing Hamlet...

You know that Shakespeare's up to no good...

Wow -- D&D.

Now there's something that was a lot of fun (sometimes).
Still got my d20 somewhere although haven't played for about 12 years...

If DM'd well, could be far more entertaining than any video-game.

That's a whole new thread again...

TreeHugger

Aug 2, 2004, 02:01 PM

My roommate had this game. It looked OK, no big deal. When you kill people in it, it changes to a movie type scene, you don't really control it. If anyone relaly thinks someone killed someone because of a video game, I think they are missing the obvious, that the person still has a choice in what they do. Seeing something and doing it are too different things. I really didn't think the game was that over the top from what I saw. As a game, it was grounded within a real story at least, as opposed to fighting games where the object is merely to fight for the sake of it. Those are the games that I think kids are more likely to immitate (I mean, I can remember as a kid trying WWF wrestling moves on my little brother and things like that).

Quote from the article: "I think that I heard some of Warren's friends say that he was obsessed with this game" Hmmm, thank that might be the problem and not the game itself. I think so. If this game never existed, do you really think someone so obivously psychiotic would not have killed someone. What kind of defense is "i saw a guy in a video game bludgeon someone to death, so I thought I'd try it" This wasn't a 7 year old either. This kid was old enough to know exactly what he was doing and the consequences of it. Maybe his parents should have been paying more attention to his interests.

I agree. And instead of blaming a video game or a violent movie, people should be lookin at the real culprit! Often bad parenting or a misquided youth lead to serious problems later on for some people.

LethalWolfe

Aug 2, 2004, 03:04 PM

First, I don't think anybody has laughed yet:

BAHAHAHA!

Secondly, did you guys miss this part?

"There was a similar outcry after the Columbine school shooting, when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold murdered 12 students and a teacher and wounded 23 others before shooting themselves at the high school in Littleton, Colorado, in April 1999.

They were known to enjoy playing Doom, a game licensed by the US military to train soldiers to kill."

BAHAHA! Doom sure is a hyper-realistic shooting simulation. All of my friends in the US Miltary train with Doom 12 hours a week. It's not the training they get at Basic that trains them how to fight. It's Doom.

Personally, I think we should get all of the crazies that think videogames/music/movies are brainwashing our poor, helpless, children into killing and send them on a one-way ride to the sun. ;)

Actually the military is using video games to help teach, among other things, basic tactics and "shooters" are used to help change pulling the trigger from a thought process into an action and to lessen the natural reluctence<sp?> to fire at a "human" target. Ever sense WWII when a study showed that, at any given time, the majority of troops in a battle were not firing their weapons the military has been trying to find ways to train troops to be less "trigger shy."

Video games will never replace field training, but there is also a lot of classroom time involved in military training and books+video games seems like a better idea than books alone while not in the field.

Lethal

James L

Aug 2, 2004, 03:44 PM

History continues to repeat itself... there is nothing new in this thread unfortunately.

I can remember people accusing Ozzy osbourne and iron Maiden of being responsible for teen suicide... Doom for mass killings, D&D (sigh, the good ol' days), etc. Today it is video games being blamed for kids actions... tomorrow?

Manhunt, while a violent game, is nothing worse than anything those kids could see on tv any night of the week. It all comes down to values and parenting...not music, plays, video games, movies, etc.

Now, where is that D&D thread? :)

TreeHugger

Aug 2, 2004, 03:49 PM

I think video games can actually just as well do the opposite of inciting violence. They can be used for blowing off some stress and steam.
Rather kill in a video game than in real life.

robbieduncan

Aug 2, 2004, 04:41 PM

I'm not really sure how you consider some of that rubbish art. Art edifies the observer, it has a meaning and intention for the benefit of society. This self-gratifying express-my-own-inner-turmoil nonsense is not art. Anybody can splash paint on a canvas or create some lame video game or film, or throw a sequence of words together. An artist gives it worthwhile meaning.

Perhaps you are simply not seeing the meaning? Art means different things to different people, and large amounts of art is simply incomprehensible to large amount of people. That doesn't stop it being art. If you consider making people happy an improvement to society then the so called rubbish has that intention.

They say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder after all.