The case aginst 'Manhunt'

[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.

[edit]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.[/edit]

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!