The case aginst 'Manhunt'

[Living Bobbeh]

Just been watching the news and this this person had beaten and stabbed his friend to death, and he was saying that he was doing it due to playing "manhunt" on Ps2. They have been saying that video games influence people to do stuff from in the agmes, makes them more voilent and the sort. anyways, the mother of the victim is filing a court case aginast Rockstar games for the death of her son.

I don't think that video games influence people and they are looking for someone to blame. If think people who do stuff like that are already voilent and play games like that to suit their needs.

Games are just the same as films and tv programs, they all infloence people, but if the child had of watched a really violent film, would they of blamed that insted of 'Manhunt'?

Because of the case aginsst Manhunt, Dixons is not goinig to sell the game anymore.

What do you guys think about all of this?

[Thaumaturge]

I agree that games do not cause violence. The simple way of looking at this is that if there were as simple a causal effect as some say, then there would be far more murders, given the number of game-players out there. In fact, most of the members of this board would probably be murderers by now.

As Psymon said, there is probably a relation between violent tendencies and the playing of violent games, but it is most probably that violent tendencies (amongst other things) make violent games more attractive to an individual.

[Toastburner B]

Yeah, a case like this always comes up every now and then. People don't want to take responsibility, so they find something to blame it on. Like the person who said he killed his parents because "The Matrix told him to."

Now, I'm not saying I'm a fan of the uber-violent games...I'm not. I wouldn't touch games like Manhunt or Grand Theft Auto with a ten foot pole...but that is just me and my tastes. I think the vast, overwhelming majority of people can tell the difference between a bunch of pixels on a screen, and a real person. If a player can't, then he has more serious problems that playing violent video games.

[Living Bobbeh]

I think the vast, overwhelming majority of people can tell the difference between a bunch of pixels on a screen, and a real person. If a player can't, then he has more serious problems that playing violent video games.
Yep yep, I can do that.

I do like a voilent game ever now and again, But not like ultra-violent. I wouldn't class GTA:VC as an ultra-violent game, but Manhunt is very violent. Most people class GTA:VC as ultra-voilent, and it's been banned in Austraila and Japan (i think, corect me if I'm wrong) But it wouldn't make me go out and kill someone, or steal a car.

[Sithdarth]

This is what is called a post hoc fallacy (http://skepdic.com/posthoc.html). Simply because something happens after another event doesn't mean they are related. There is no direct evidence and in all actuality it's probably the other way around. Like has already been said. It's amazing what otherwise smart people can convince themselves of with a logical fallacy, and this one is easy to fall into. That being said the game probably had an efect but he would have eventually gotten to that point anyway.

[darkt0aster]

The fact that Dixons is backing down really is a blow to the videogame industry. If one publishes violent media, they need to be willing to stand by their rights or not do it at all. They should have known that the game, like all other violent videogames would come under fire. This just gives those opposed more fuel to continue and fight back harder against violent media in hopes that other companies will do the same.

Also, we never hear about the parenting or mental condition of the killers... odd, no? The news never follows through with that sort of stuff, It's not interesting to the general public. This is probably why some criminals blame their actions on the media, seeing how it takes the focus off their personal life and makes for a feeble attempt at getting a lesser sentence.

[Crodevillian Team]

All right- I think most everyone on this forum agrees that video games are harmless, so for discussion's sake, I'll try the other side and see what I can come up with. Don't crucify me for it. ;-)

The simple way of looking at this is that if there were as simple a causal effect as some say, then there would be far more murders, given the number of game-players out there.

Another way to look at it is, why are some players of violent games killing people? If it's not the video games, then what is it that is influencing a child?

Take, for example, two children who play Manhunt. One of them murders his best friend. The other one becomes an accountant. What's the difference between them? Why did one kill somebody? For that matter, why does anybody kill anybody? If it's not violent films or games, is it genetics? If that's the case, then why do we put all murderers in prison for huge amounts of time? Why do we put them on death row? Why aren't they all in a mental institution? That's not an argument, that's a question. By putting them in prison, we assume they're capable of rational thought. But if they were rational, they wouldn't kill anybody. So then we're back to violent tendencies. Where do violent tendencies come from?

Games are just the same as films and tv programs, they all infloence people, but if the child had of watched a really violent film, would they of blamed that insted of 'Manhunt'?

Video games are not the same as films and TV programs. Games place you in control. They let you make all the decisions. When you play violent games like GTA, what is the objective? What decisions are there to make? You kill people to get ahead. You steal cars to get ahead. If you don't, you lose. The only decisions you can make are ones that, done in real life, would land you in prison. This doesn't happen in films; you don't drive the story, you don't control the characters, you don't make the decisions. It's not nearly as personal or involved as video games are.

Now, a lot of you are saying that violent video games only influence violent people. How do we know they were violent before playing the game? If that's the case, if violent video games only inluence violent people, doesn't that still mean they're contributing to violence- that they -are- responsible?

That being said the game probably had an efect but he would have eventually gotten to that point anyway.

In real life, you can get in trouble for instigating a fight. If video games are the "sparks" that ignite violence, what do we do?

Also, we never hear about the parenting or mental condition of the killers... odd, no?.

If parenting and mental conditions can contribute to a person's violent disposition, who's to say that violent games and movies aren't helping to breed violent people? I remember reading the Mainichi fairly recently and learning of a girl who killed her best friend in a way that was done in [the killer's] favorite movie, Battle Royale- she slit her throat from behind. The movie clearly had an influence in this case. An oversaturation of violence surely can't be good for children.

[lazy man]

Other than the problems of the kid, we don't generally hear about their age either. If it's a 9-year-old kid that was playing it, then that could be the video game making them do it. The problem with this is that the kid's parents are letting a kid that old play a mature rated game. I don't see why the parents are ever asked why they let their children play games like that when they happen to be that young and they abosorb everything they see and think they should do it, thinking it's cool because the main character's doing it.

If the murderer happened to be older, a teenager for example, then they obviously have problems. At that age, they should have a sense of right and wrong. This is when the parents or the murderer are trying to find something to blame, the violent video game being the closest thing that would seem to influence them, but at that age, they should know better than to pick up a knife and stab someone in the eye because it's in a game. The game could have just given the kid an idea of how to do what he could have been plotting to do.

My overall opinion: Everyone's to blame. The parents for letting their kids play such violent games when they're so young or older kids having problems and not trying to get help. I would say more, but I can't think of anything else right now, so I'll say something later.

[Zakanf Da'arkblades]

I remember reading the Mainichi fairly recently and learning of a girl who killed her best friend in a way that was done in [the killer's] favorite movie, Battle Royale- she slit her throat from behind. The movie clearly had an influence in this case. An oversaturation of violence surely can't be good for children.
But, as the killer was a child, who allowed her to see Battle Royale? Who never said, "this is only a movie, so you don't go and kill people."? The parents. A child is the sole responsibility of it's parents and as such, the parents should get an punishment equal to that of the child. This is also a problem with the mentality of many countries today. Parents shouldn't have to be afraid to administer corporal punishment to their children. Without it, what does a parent have that is a capable way of establishing morals in their children? Time out? No tv? What kind of punishment is that? Most of the fun of childhood takes place in the child's mind anyway, so taking away tv would only help them learn to use their imagination. A good thing, yes, but not an actual punishment. Physical pain allows the child's mind to associate pain with their wrong-doing. In essence, what I'm trying to say, is that parents should stop spoiling their kids and use the rod/switch/belt/hand that every generation before this newest one has learned to fear.

[Crodevillian Team]

But, as the killer was a child, who allowed her to see Battle Royale? Who never said, "this is only a movie, so you don't go and kill people."? The parents.

But, that's the point. No one ever told her this, probably. Therefore, her influence came from the movie. The violence, in a way, inspired her. Thus, we can see how violent movies and games can influence people.

The problem with this is that the kid's parents are letting a kid that old play a mature rated game. I don't see why the parents are ever asked why they let their children play games like that when they happen to be that young and they abosorb everything they see and think they should do it, thinking it's cool because the main character's doing it.

Exactly- most people would agree that letting kids play violent video games is a bad idea. They recognize that they shouldn't be exposed, hence the ESRB ratings. But, I find it strange that as soon as a child commits a crime, and then blames video games, the same people rush to defend the game. They realize that violent video games are bad for children, but when something happens, they say the game had no influence. Where's the logic?

If the murderer happened to be older, a teenager for example, then they obviously have problems.

But what if this child is raised on violent movies and video games? Indeed, it's the parent's fault for letting their child be exposed (and not explaining what it's all about) but where are the overall violent tendencies coming from? I don't think the parents of these murderous children are instilling the 'values of violence' in their children. It's simply through parental neglect that children become exposed, and over time, can develop ideas. The parents are to blame for their neglect, but could it not be the violence [in movies, games] that fosters the violence?

In essence, what I'm trying to say, is that parents should stop spoiling their kids and use the rod/switch/belt/hand that every generation before this newest one has learned to fear.

Perhaps it's effective, but I disagree with it. I could never hit my child, but I hold no grudge against those who choose to do it. I personally feel that authority and respect can be established without the threat of pain. I want my child to respect me, not fear me.

[Jagos]

"Spare the rod, Spoil the child"

Yes, some children can fear you for geting whipped. But there's a way to do almost everything. Ex. My sister barely gets a belt to the butt. But when she does, she knows why it's being done and what lead up to it. She's smart for an 8 year old. Yes, she plays violent games. But that's not the only thing she does. She loves to play Stepmania and playing games with her other siblings (ie me) like Jet Set Radio.

I don't know if the game was the only one this kid played. Great, he had Manhunt in his collection. But I don't know the whole picture. Just putting a game on view like that seriously slants the story without a full background and history check. Is it just me or are more journalists getting lazy?

[Zakanf Da'arkblades]

Just putting a game on view like that seriously slants the story without a full background and history check. Is it just me or are more journalists getting lazy?
Think about what you said here. It "slants" the story? Really? I don't think a journalist would do such a thing except out of laziness.[/sarcasm]
I think that the "slant" of the story was the entire purpose of the journalist. Maybe his/her boss wanted him/her to make the video game industry look bad. Remember, even those who we gain information from will taint that information for their own purposes.

Also, I think that it would be the lawyers who are trying to "slant" the story here. They are the ones who are performing said lawsuit.

[Sithdarth]

You know I remember hearing about this strange concept called being objective. It was supposed to be something that journalist followed; we all know thats a bunch of crap though.

Yes the games can have an effect on more impressionable children. That doesn't give cause to ban the freaking game because some stupid parents go out and buy it for there 8 year old. There are ratings on those things for a reason. The rest of us should not be punished because a few lazy parents can't keep track of what their kids watch/play.

As for the people saying they see how games can have an effect and then saying it couldn't be the games you simply misinterpert. Games have an effect that doesn't mean they're the root cause. That and there is actually three sides to this debate. Those that blame games, those that admit to some influence, and those that think games don't do anything. The last two positions are so similar it's easy to confuse them as being on the same side. However, this is not really the case and is the source of this percieved inconsistancy. Although, there are a few people that seem to share both views but they are a minorty not the majorty.

[Archbio]

I think saying that videogames are no influence at all is an overcompensation against what is felt to be part of an attack against all representations of violence. The response is illogical because the attack is seen to be as well, why seek to ban games for how they can influence children, since the only thing keeping the already existing restrictions from functionning is a lack of adult responsability?

Videogames would be inciting to violence only if they called or condoned it outside of their fictional confines (like any other representation of violence). Since they don't, it's a matter of how much they can misinterpreted in that way, and not the level of violence that they show, that matters. Oddly, I thought of citing GTA as the worst kind of game, but then I remembered that the gratuitous mayhem in that game only happens through a free choice of the player.

Videogames are an influence, but they aren't an "overriding" influence (and not exceptional), and they should be counterbalanced by a lot of things, including parents, in the case of children.

There's two things I don't buy: citing events where a more or less distinctive method of killing is pulled from fiction and used in real life (just shows a lack of creativity on the killers part: if they were that unbalanced, they might have done it anyway, only in a duller way*), and the famous "this videogame made me do it", which is obviously a very unsincere way of trying to shift the blame. Why would someone that would have let themselves be swayed that much by fiction suddenly become so lucid?

[Speechless]

See, this is what hitmen are good for. Theres no truth behind "Omg the video game made me do it" its all lack of resposiblity and cheap excuses to get in less trouble. Also who stabs and beats there friend for no reason...either he did something that pissed him off like took his girlfriend, otherwise he just snapped and deserves the before mentioned Hitman, or a mental institute.

fixed, mr.english teacher...

[Viper Daimao]

from http://www.techcentralstation.com/072804C.html

Last week, I responded to James Glassman's observation that American teenagers are doing better than they've done in decades by trying to figure out why that might be. Teen pregnancy is down, along with teen crime, drug use, and many other social ills. There's also evidence that teenagers are more serious about life in general, and are more determined to make something worthwhile of their lives. Where just a few years ago the "teenager problem" looked insoluble, it seems well on the road to solving itself. But why?

After that column came out, it occurred to me that I had the answer: Porn and videogames. That's what's making American teens healthier.

It should have been obvious.

After all, one of the great changes in teenagers' social environments over the past decade or so has been far greater exposure to explicit pornography, via the Internet, and violence, via videogames. Where twenty or thirty years ago teenagers had to go to some effort to see pictures of people having sex, now those things are as close as a Google query. (In fact, on the Internet it takes some small effort to avoid such pictures.) Meanwhile videogames have gotten more violent, with efforts to limit their content failing on First Amendment grounds.

But -- despite continued warnings from concerned mothers' groups -- teenagers are less violent, and they're having less sex, notwithstanding the predictions of many concerned people that such exposure would have the opposite effect. More virtual sex and violence would seem to go along with less real sex and violence.

The solution is thus obvious -- we need a massive government program to ensure that no American teenager goes without porn and videogames Let no child be left behind!

Well, no. Not even I'm ready to argue for that kind of legislation, though I suppose that candidates interested in the youth vote might want to give it a thought…

But the real lesson is that complex social problems are, well, complex, and that the law of unintended consequences continues to apply.

When teen crime and pregnancy rates were going up, people looked at things that were going on -- including increased availability of porn and violent imagery -- and concluded that there might be something to that correlation. It turned out that there wasn't. Porn and Duke Nukem took over the land, and yet teenagers became more responsible and less violent.

Maybe the porn, and the videogames, provided catharsis, serving as substitutes for the real thing. Maybe. And maybe there's no connection at all. (Or maybe it's a different one -- research indicates that teenagers, though safer and healthier, are also fatter -- so perhaps the other improvements are the result of teens sitting around looking at porn and videogames until they're too out-of-shape and unattractive for the real thing…) Most likely, the lesson is that -- once again -- correlation isn't causation, despite policy entrepreneurs' efforts to claim otherwise.

But regardless, the fears of the doomsayers were proven wrong. People can continue to claim that psychological research suggests that videogames lead to violence and that porn leads to promiscuity, but in the real world the evidence seems to suggest otherwise. That's an argument against regulating videogames -- and it's an argument for taking other claims of impending social doom with a grain of salt.

And maybe it's an argument for surfing porn and playing shoot'em-up games, too. After all, as the activists say, if it saves just one child, it's worth it…

[MP37a]

Hahaha I can see some parent magazine article now. Porn and violence is good for your children make sure it is easily accessible.

I think the ppl that go out and do something they saw in a movie or videogame had something wrong with them to begin with. It wasn't this videogame that all of the sudden put a crazed rage into the child. They had it to begin with. And let's face some ppl are really stupid also.

[Otaku Son]

What the bloody hell was a child doing playing a M-rated game to begin with?
I think the vast, overwhelming majority of people can tell the difference between a bunch of pixels on a screen, and a real person. If a player can't, then he has more serious problems that playing violent video games.
Games rarely use pixels anymore; we've evolved into polygons. And polygons provide a more realistic look to video games than do pixels.

I personally think the parents need to take responsibility for their children, and adults need to take respinsiblity for themselves. If they can't control their own damn actions, that's their fault. People should know whether or not the(y/eir children) are "influenced" or not. But personally, people are probably using this as a way to escape punishment. I wrote a research paper on this subject, too[for that not in the know, I'm (in)famous for writing research papers and later using the material in these debate threads].

Dr. Craig A. Anderson is a professor at the Iowa State University. In his article, “Video Games and Aggressive Behavior,” he divides the video game evolution into three eras: “[t]he first era (1977-1985) was dominated by the Atari console video games,” “[t]he second era (1985-1995) was dominated largely by the Nintendo console games,” and “the third video game era (1995-present).” However, Anderson studies the effects of violence on human behavior.
“Anderson’s work also helped reduce the sentences of two separate juvenile killers who’d played videogames just prior to shooting their playmates to death,” says Noah Robischon(37.) “‘What I was able to do,’ says attorney Ray Jackson, who helped his defendants beat first-degree murder charges, ‘is make the jury believe the first shot was in fact an accident because of the videogames.’”
Not all video games with guns are meant to be violent, either. The popular Metal Gear Solid series and newly-released Splinter Cell games focus on stealth over brute force. As a player of Metal Gear Solid, I know the purpose of the game is to nullify your enemy with tranquilizer darts, not blast their skulls open with the deadliest weapon you have. This is a game which encourages a high score if you don’t kill your enemies, and demotes the score if you do.
Sources

Anderson, Craig. A. “Video Games and Aggressive Behavior.” Kids’ Stuff: Marketing Sex and Violence to America's Children. Eds. D. Ravitch and J.P. Viteritti. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003. 143-67

Robischon, Noah, et al. “Head Games” Entertainment Weekly 6 Dec. 2002: 36-37

[The Mirror Emperor]

Games only make really crazy or unbelievably stupid people kill people. A couple examples: A kid who stabbed and killed his sister long ago cause of FF7; I think I heard somewhere the D.C snipers (Oct 2002) said they killed so they could free their minds from the Matrix; two kids acting out a Grand Theft Auto scene; some reporter said that a video game had something to do with the Columbine thing; that Halo thing the original poster mentioned; because of lousy parents and lesser school teachings, all that and some more happened. But like I said, crazy or unbelievably stupid people think life is Halo or GTA.

[Krylo]

"Spare the rod, Spoil the child"
"Happy will he be that grabs ahold and does dash to pieces your children against the crag of david." That passage is speaking of the illegetimate children of a babylonian whore, but I believe the point stands that perhaps two thousand year old books are not better sources of knowledge for child treatment than, say, modern psychology.

Particularily when you take what you Darkblade said about this generation being the first, or one of the first, to go without the 'rod', as it were, and combine it with the statistics that Viper gave showing that pre-marital sex, murder, etc. etc. are all dropping amongst teenagers. Meaning that, without the rod, the moral fiber of our country is actually strengthening.

And, to say something relatively on-subject, there are some psychologists who believe that violence and pornography in media ARE replacements for the real thing. I've read a few studies done, in which they've found that people who watch more porn, and play more violent videogames are actually less likely, on average, to commit violent or sexual acts. Granted, the studies aren't conclusive, because you can't really get a good control unless you kidnap people and watch them every moment of their life... but they're about as conclusive as you can get.

Besides, it's somewhat common sense. If you've just gotten off, you feel much less inclined to have sex than if you've been pushing back sexual feelings for years... same goes for violent feelings. You release them in a video game instead of bottling them up until you beat the crap out of someone for bumping into you when you're having a bad day.

[Mr. Viewtiful]

Like krylo mentioned, this is all common sense, and unfortunately some people lack that.

However, sometimes videogames inspire people to do good things. For instance, I'm sure that after playing the Tony Hawk's Pro Skater games, people went out and tried skateboarding.

Another good example is the use of videogames for training people. I know that in some counties Driver's Ed. classes use games to practice driving. As for myself...I got Crazi Taxi :D

[Otaku Son]

some reporter said that a video game had something to do with the Columbine thingI'd heard it was caused by Maryln Manson's music. Point is, it was still blamed on some form of media.

crazy or unbelievably stupid people think life is Halo or GTA.
However, sometimes videogames inspire people to do good things.Damn right. Now, pardon me while I go infiltrate a terrorist base by myself with no weapons or anything and need to perform On-Site Procurement, fight off some psychoatic sons of bitches with bizarro powers, and eventually make my way to that walking nuclear-eqipped deathmobile of destruction, only to find my separated-at-birth twin brother is the one behind this whole thing.

For instance, I'm sure that after playing the Tony Hawk's Pro Skater games, people went out and tried skateboarding.
Yeah, but here's the kicker: in Tony Hawk Underground 2, you get points for graffittizing the 'hood.

[Sithdarth]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Full Spectrum Warrior. The game was actually developed for training US Troops in urban unit tactics. Then the game developers that wrote the trainer for the army got the ok to release a commerical version. While the commerical version of the game isn't doing any good the military version definetly did quite a bit of good. Who knows maybe one day all the civies that play Full Spectrum may find a use for what they learn playing the game.

[Mr. Viewtiful]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Full Spectrum Warrior. The game was actually developed for training US Troops in urban unit tactics. Then the game developers that wrote the trainer for the army got the ok to release a commerical version. While the commerical version of the game isn't doing any good the military version definetly did quite a bit of good. Who knows maybe one day all the civies that play Full Spectrum may find a use for what they learn playing the game.

That's the prime example that slipped my mind. It's a lot better for soldiers to learn combat tactics and such in a training program, as opposed to in real life. That way, a screw-up won't force them to pay the ultimate price...

Off-topic: I actually heard somewhere that you can use a code to make it like the official Army version. Can anyone confirm this?

Now, pardon me while I go infiltrate a terrorist base by myself with no weapons or anything and need to perform On-Site Procurement, fight off some psychoatic sons of bitches with bizarro powers, and eventually make my way to that walking nuclear-eqipped deathmobile of destruction, only to find my separated-at-birth twin brother is the one behind this whole thing.

Dang, your life must be pretty screwed up.

[Thaumaturge]

All right, I'm willing to concede that violent games probably do encourage violent tendencies in very young children, i.e. those not yet old enough to understand the difference between reality and fantasy (and you'd be surprised at how young this distinction can exist). In older children, the parents have a responsibility to monitor theie children's gaming, since they know best what their child can handle. If they are not sure, I would recommend erring on the side of caution.

However, I might point out that there must be some prior propensity for violenc in children old enough to discriminate between fantasy and reality. A fairly young child (7 to 10, perhaps) can watch violence without becoming violent in real life, as I know from experience.

[The Infallible]

I am not a fan of ultra-violent games, but i do not think that those kinds of video games cause violence. anyone who would do what he saw in a video game is clearly an already troubled individual. If you believe that playing GTA will make a kid start to make stuff bleed profusely then you must also belive that playing Final Fantasy will make you try to ride fuzzy yellow birds.

To say that Video Games cause Violence is to say that we cannot control our own actions. If thats the case then there would be a whole hell of alot more violent crimes.

Also, Japan has more video games then any other country but they are one of, if not the, least violent countries.

I like video games... especially starcraft, I do not want video games to be censored. Maybe it is because im a gamer that i feel this way, probably is. if you want a real argument for our side then you have to get an objective source. No one from the other side will take you seriously if your the one who plays these games. Unfair, but thats the way it works.

[Capt. Badass]

One problem with violence in Movies, Video games, TV ect. is that the violence is too unrealistic a lot of the time. For example, in many movies you'll see someone get kicked in the head pretty damn hard and then get back up and fight some more. The characters will beat eachother senseless for a long time. This is completly unrealistic, if you get kicked in the head hard, you DON'T get back up, at least not immediatly.
Now we do have games like Manhunt where the violence can seem very real at times, however, it still lacks a certain amount of realism. I work in a hospital, and if you ever see a person that has been shot, stabbed, and/or beaten, you see the blood, a lot of blood. Many will scream in a way that seems almost inhuman, some people who have no religion will all of a sudden find themselves screaming for a god, any god, to save them. You don't see that kind of thing in Manhunt, its dumbed down ultra-violence (if that makes any sense).
It can be said that people who see this in entertainment media, start becoming desensitized to conseqences, not the violence itself. Should violent media be changed so it shows these consequences? I don't think so personally, but that is because I, like most gamers, am a rational human being that understands that although art imitates life, that is all it is - an imitation - and not always a good one.

[RMS Oceanic]

While the game may have increased this person's violent tendancies by a degree, I don't think it alone was responsible. I believe that:

A. He has issues.

B. He was unsatisfactoraly unsupervised. What's going on with a 17 year old playing something for 18 year olds?

Don't get me wrong, I like GTA:VC, but I point blank refuse to let my 9-year old sister watch it. I know she couldn't handle it.

[C-dog]

B. He was unsatisfactoraly unsupervised. What's going on with a 17 year old playing something for 18 year olds?

That's a little much. I'm all for the rule, but I was watching R rated movies and playing M games when I was 15-16. It would have driven me nuts if my parents were still putting on all the restraints when I was 17. That's the kind of stuff that wrecks your relationship with your parents. I agree on not letting your 9-year-old sister play this stuff though. It all depends on the situation. For instance, this guy must have been showing some kind of signs that he had issues. If my kid was twitching and mumbling to himself all the time (example), I sure as hell wouldn't allow him to play violent video games, regardless of his age. You can't kill your friend on a whim and act perfectly normal the rest of the time.

It's not Rockstar's fault this guys is screwed-up, but I can't blame the dead guy's mom for trying to sue them. I mean, the woman's son is dead. She could go after the killer's family, but they're having problems of their own. Their son killed somebody. God. So, why not go after a faceless corperation?

[Living Bobbeh]

I played GTA when I was was underaged. I played GTA1 when I was about 7 i think and GTA3 when I was 10-11. It was hasn't changed me a bit, I has made me thought about killing one of my class mates(though, He is a total prick that needs some medicane of something), But I could never kill anyone. Watching the matrix only made me think that slo-mo effects are super cool and ocasionly making me dive at my sofa(in fact, I'm gonna do that now. one battered sholder later and he returns to his seat)

[Jon Garrett]

OK...I'd like to point out a few things here, since this one is all over the English news. It's the first time there's been evidence of a game, even the poor evidence they have, affecting a child.

First, the killer was about 17 when he was tried. I'm not sure if he didn't do the whole killing bit when 16. His friend who he killed was 14...and the one who actually owned the game. The boys mother who is blaiming the game is also the one who bought him it, and allowed both boys to play it in her home.

Three large computer shops, plus GAME (the UK's version of Electronic Boutique) have pulled the game. I've seen GTA and every other violent game around, however. Just Manhunt has been pulled.

[Maverick Zero]

Now, I don't think I'm crazy or violent persay, by killing all the stupid people could speed up the process of proving they are all stupid.
:bmage:

No?

Okay. My take on these nimrods (yes I said nimrods) is that they don't understand the technology half the time, and are scared because of it. In countries around the world, who calls all the shots? Older people, people who didn't have everything us children have today. (Oh I'm 17) I play plenty of games, but do I ever copy them and kill someone? ... Well I did start to move my swords like a Samurai once, but I didn't hurt or kill anyone. In fact is was like Ta Chi (I can't speel bare with me). Slow control movements, in an effort to better my self, not kill the first person to piss me off. Back to my point though, old people, or older people are calling the shots. And as much as they think they know about computer and etc. They don't understand because they didn't grow up with them. That's all I got.

[darkt0aster]

I actually heard somewhere that you can use a code to make it like the official Army version. Can anyone confirm this?
Yep. It's true. I don't own it, but I found that the code, HA2P1PY9TUR5TLE, is entered somewhere and unlocks it. (found on ign boards, within multiple threads)

Something on topic (and slightly vague now that I read it again... oh well, gotta make this post somewhat worthwhile):
When one not ready for a more intense experience provided by the media, like children, or mental cases for example ...hmmh, I've never put those two groups in the same boat before, but still, it can yield tragic results. With those prone to act on suggestive media, it's just a matter of time before they find some random piece of media that influences them. If they played GTA last, it's "GTA made me kill this person." If they played manhunt last, it's "Manhunt made me kill this person." etc. I can see why videogames are more likely to be blamed, since they work the psyche more than any form of media and therefore are more likely to influence those that can't take it.

[Junn]

The one thing that needs to be said is that violence in the media can change brain chemistry. Check out this site www.sosparents.org . It actually has brain scans showing the effects of violence on the brain.

That pretty much stops this debate.

[Sithdarth]

So does absolutely every from of sensory input and thinking. It's called your brain doing what it is supposed to so you can think/processes what happens to you. It proves absolutely nothing.

[Junn]

Actually it proves everything. The change in the brain shows that the functins of teh logic centers of the brain are effectively shut down the more exposed a brain is to media violence. That is the part of the brain that allows a person to logically wiegh options and deduce consequences for their actions. When that part of the brain is dulled and the pleasure centers are stimulated from the regular invervation of media violence that could lead to potential actions that seek to keep those pleasurable centers firing. Hence, the decisions to commit violence are not logically wiehged out and can be performed in a pseudo vacuum. Check out the website it is pretty scary. I also for the record love video games and this last year I have learned so much about the potentially damaging aspects of some of my favorite games. It was a hard lesson to learn, but the important thing really comes down to keeping our children safe. Why do we regulated rated R movies so that children cannot see them when a video game is not regulated and the violence is put in their control?

[Archbio]

The only thing pseudo here is the science involved in that explanation in that website. At least that's a very strong hunch I have, and I didn't know they had a "logic" center pinpointed in the brain.

[Sithdarth]

For one I did check the site out. It's no big surprise that after being exposed to violence they kids think about violence. I may have missed something but the study didn't seem to show any evidence of longterm effects.

That and almost everyone here has accepted small children are influecned, and older ones too, but they are more resistant.

[MasterOfMagic]

I was playing Doom when I was 7. I was looking at bloody bodies on pikes, and strung up on walls. I was actively blowing the heads off of those ugly monsters, and throughly enjoying it. That being said, I am the most unviolent person you will ever meet. I wouldn't so much as hit someone unless they attacked me first. I don't get angry unless you do something extremely assholish to me.

Now, that isn't to say it didn't effect me at all, but it certainly hasn't caused me to kill or maim someone.

[Junn]

Thanks for checking that out Sith. The problem is most people who are really into those games play them all the time. That is the problem. If they are away from the games the effects go away as well. As for the science www.killology.com . The most important thing is that the games are coupled with a lack of parental involvement. If the parents were involved with their children's lives most of this video game violence would be a moot point. The sad fact is in the cases where the children commit acts of violence th parents were the moot point. If you can't tell I've worked with this issue quite a bit this last year. It is pretty sobering. Thanks for listening and I agree with your statement that younger children are more suseptable.

[Krylo]

Why do we regulated rated R movies so that children cannot see them when a video game is not regulated and the violence is put in their control?You've just shown a complete lack of knowledge in the arena of videogame law. When something is rated Teen or M by the ESRB you can't buy it unless you're 13+ or 18+, respectively. Just like a rated R movie, you have to get your parents to buy it for you/go to the theater with you. It's the same thing, except parents just buy their kids games marked "M, strong sexual content, graphic violence, language, nudity," without any thought at all, when they wouldn't do the same for a movie with all those things.

And, there's also studies showing that humanity is, at base, at least somewhat violent. Many of them, actually. Next time someone is going hunting, ask them why they don't just buy the meat at the store. They'll say they enjoy it... press further as to how they could enjoy sitting in the rain and the cold for hours just to kill some animal, and they'll end up admitting that they 'need to kill something'. Man is hardwired for violence, just like every other predator. However, that violence doesn't have to be real.

While there are studies showing that playing violent games constantly could dull your ability to reason for a short time (kind of like doing any repetitive activity for long periods of time), there are also studies showing that violent video games allow people to take out real world aggression in a way that has absolutely no real world consequences (other than, maybe, a few hours of missed sleep because you just HAD to get to the next level).

[The Smiling Assasin]

Video games don't cause violence. It's only when people are too stupid to tell the difference between the game and reality.

[The Mirror Emperor]

I thought that ESRB only warned you and didn't restrict you to the violence of games.

As for parents and R movies, they take kids to the movies thinking it won't effect them but I remember a kid at an 8 Mile showing staring awkwardly at the sex scene.

If there were more games that don't let unnecessary actions go unpunished I think there would be less "crazy and unbelievably stupid people" as described in my last post shooting up storms in real life.

[popularnerd]

nahhh in CA governator is ironically trying to pass a law that would restrict M rated game sales to minors..sucks I know. My sisters once had afriend who had a little brother. this bastard was like seven or something and his parents were letting him play stuff like GTA and RE. This is probably the only way Video games affect a persons mind. When they are still somewhat open and easily influenced. I knew this kid for a year and the little bastard would actully go a round trying to shoot people with a nerf gun. His parents were completely oblivious to what he was doing because as far as they new, GTA was an educational learning software. However when the little asshole started whining about the latest new R rated movie his parents were vigilant in their denial. Obviously people are getting into such situations because the think video games are all non violent little miracles. Don't get me wrong. I love video games. All I'm saying is that there is a certain time for everything including virtual dismemberment.

[Thaumaturge]

SPARTAN-000, it seems to me that in your example the fault lies with the parents of the child, not with the game itself. The parents should have informed themselves on the games that their child was playing.

Like MasterOfMagic, I was exposed to quite violent fare while still fairly young, and also tend not to be violent. I do not hurt people on purpose (except in self-defence, and even then I doubt that I'd kill someone), but thoroughly enjoy the catharsis of a 3-D shoot-'em-up. In the end, that's what violent games are. Catharsis.

As well as this, I think that young children do go through a violent phase. It usually passes, and tends not to go much further than things like nerf guns.

Another thing: remember that violent people will probably gravitate to violent games. The causality in "He played violent games, and he was violent in real life" is far from clear.

[Cyclone231]

Let's say video games DO cause violence. Not saying they do, but let's just say.

If video games DO cause violence, it's like blaming the knife or the gun for the killing of your son, an inanimate object which can in no way psionically control you.

[adamark]

If I were a journalist I would consider that a juicy story that might help me make front page. "What? The kid killed his family because of video games? That's fucked up. I might get a pulitzer for this one!" Don't look at the media as a bringer of "truth." They like saucy stories. The media is made up of human storytellers.

If I were a defense attorney I would consider a videogame defense maybe the ONLY way to acquit my client. Afterall, this is probably a child or a teenager whose life I'm trying to save. It's also my job to try every avenue of defense. If I don't provide adequate counsil, the bar association might revoke my license, so I'll try anything I can, even if it's bizarre and doesn't follow logic. A jury is just a panel made up of 12 human beings that CAN be persuaded.



I think people can lose touch with reality pretty easily. You can't just look at yourself and say: well, I don't go psycho when I play games, so that must mean NO ONE else does. People go insane for the most simple reasons sometimes. Road rage is one of them. Someone gets cut off and they think they have to kill someone. For someone I know if you point your finger in his face he will go CRAZY. His eyes will gloss over and he will enter battle mode. So I find it *possible* that one could lose touch with reality after playing a game like GTA3... while they already have terrible emotional events occuring in their life.

We just can't be egotistical and think that the psychos out there (they ARE out there) are set off by the same things WE are.

We also can't let those psychos take away our video games.

[Darth SS]

Well, here's my two cents and a handy little fact (That may have been mentioned. I've only read the first page)

Ironically enough, the game didn't belong to the killer. It belonged to the kid who was killed. Funny that that was conveniently left out?

Back on topic: It's a well established fact that during adolesence (sp?) the human mind changes the most based on outside factors and influence. However, the wonderful thing about the human brain is that if consciously thinking about it, it can (And sometimes will) reject that influence from the psyche of the child.

Furthermore, it's a pretty safe bet that if the child is playing the games enough to be able to replicate almost exactly how they killed on the game, they're spending WAY too much time on the game.

Now, am I saying that video games can be gory and violent as all hell and it's still perfectly okay? Well, no. The grey area in this case is that, regardless of age or maturity, if you witness something enough it ceases to effect you. And in a twisted way, Video Game designers are getting a bit too much slack. Sure, Manhunt was a pretty fun game, and gave some pretty amazing images. But is it morally right to create a game that will likely be played by children, where the main gimic revolves solely around different forms of murder? It really goes on your opinion.

Yes: If they're playing the game they should be damn-well mature enough to recgonize it is not a good thing. Murder isn't "cool" or "fun" or anything like that. They should recgonize that the acts the happen on the screen are triggered by sending a command to a piece of silicon to do an equation that equals something happening on screen. If they aren't mature enough to do that, their parents shouldn't be letting them play it at all.

No: They could be influenced by that and desensitized. It is theoretically possible for a child to get the idea from the game, become desensitized, then later subconsciously assume that "Hey. What the hell. I'll kill him."


However, the video game designers often don't look too hard at that. Their job is not to assume moral responsibility about what happens after the child plays the game. Their sole job and function is to create an enjoyable game. They have no liability about how people choose to use the experience. If they were liable for the child's actions after the fact, we could sue a tool company because a Sledgehammer can be used as a weapon.

As Sithdarth said (Branching off differently here) just because someone ate a Cheese Burger and then killed someone doesn't mean the burger can be blamed.

Overall, as earlier stated, the fault is not with the program/video game itself. It's with children. And their parents. Just because it gives dissapproving Senators an excuse to accuse video games doesn't mean that they are valified.

If you can accuse something and automatically be valified for it, you could just point at someone and scream "WITCH!"



And thank god I'm canadian...we have no Governator.

[popularnerd]

California is one fucked up state. BTW all videogames are protected under the 1st ammendment so its a moot point whether the government can censor games.

[MFD]

Another interesting fact. The killer wanted to victim's game to sell for drug money. That's the connection.

And the game belonging to the victim is not ironic. Damn you, Alanis!

[Thaumaturge]

We just can't be egotistical and think that the psychos out there (they ARE out there) are set off by the same things WE are

Perhaps I missed something, but I don't think that anyone here claimed that. For myself, I was simply pointing out that there is a problem with the oversimplification that "violent games are bad because they cause violence," by citing a counter-example.

[QUOTE=MFD]And the game belonging to the victim is not ironic[QUOTE]

Actually, it is pretty ironic.

[MFD]

Coincidental is not ironic. I don't have an exact definition, but whatever.

[Thaumaturge]

Irony: n the expression of meaning by the use of words normally conveying the opposite; the apparent perversity of fate or circumstances.

(the Oxford English Minidictionary, 1995)

My personal feeling is that this falls under the second part of the definition. This person was killed for a game by someone who had played the game in a way that (I believe) derived from the game.