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.

[Otaku Son]

What the bloody hell was a child doing playing a M-rated game to begin with?

Originally Posted by Toastburner B

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].

Originally Posted by Otaku Son, Mary 4, 2004

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.

[Otaku Son]

Originally Posted by The Mirror King

some reporter said that a video game had something to do with the Columbine thing

I'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.

Originally Posted by Mr. Viewtiful

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.

[Edit]

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.[/Edit]

[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.

[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. 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.