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. 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.

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.