If you haven't seen the news today, a grieving parent has decided to persue legal action against Rockstar Games on the grounds that the killer of her teenage son was said to be "obssesed" with the game. The charge she will level at the company is one of "Corporate Manslaughter" and in response, Dixons have removed the game from their shelves. All this is going on despite the fact that the game in question was rated 18 and the killer was only 17 when the crime was commited.

Is it fair to persue such an inflamatory course of action against a company on the grounds that a disturbed individual - who would probably have commited his crime regardless of their product - played their game?

Or are these people just looking for a scapegoat?

Their parents let them play this game. The manufactures are responding to a niche in the market.

I blame Thatcher. Only joking, I'm not an blinkered left wing utopianist.

There are too many factors to be able to aportion blame.

It's just plain tragic

It's like when Marilyn Manson got the blame for Columbine.

Again it's stupid, I do sympathise with the parents of the victim but you can't blame it on video's, music or games. The fact that the individual committed such a crime it probably because they are either mentally unstable or a complete pyscho.
My boyfriend has Manhunt and it's gory but harmless in the right hands. It has an 18 certificate to stop children seeing it, but at the end of the day most people know right from wrong and it's a game, it's not real. You can't start censoring things because one sick person happened to play the game.

Agghhhhhh!!!!!

Think of the children!

THE CHILDREN!

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!

It didn't make it through the censor process in New Zealand. The arguement for banning it goes something like this....

It takes between 20 -24 hrs to finish the game during which time the gamer must keep their agression + violence going in order to complete the more gruesome murders. At the end of each murder the game plays back the equivalent "snuff" movie, so in effect your building up one huge virtual snuff film. Apparently the psychological effects of having to keep the violence going aren't natural and so banning it is probably not a bad idea.

Originally posted by tas1
Apparently the psychological effects of having to keep the violence going aren't natural and so banning it is probably not a bad idea.


Kneejerk crap.

Thousands of people throughout the world have sat through that game.
There has been one case where somebody has (for some weak, far-fetched reason) decided to blame it for a murder.

The reason the murder happened was not because of a computer game - it was because of the kid who didnt know right from wrong.
That is not the fault of Rockstar. It is the fault of the kid's parents.

It is a case of people looking for someone - anyone - to blame.

Do people who play Mario go around jumping on people's heads? Do people who play Sonic the Hedgehog go rolling around the streets, stealing rings from people? Are people who are really, really good at 'Olympics 2004' for the Playstation going to be called up to compete in the real thing?

It's a pretty tired argument.

There is growing evidence that some individuals are strongly influenced by a diet of violent films and games. A small number of high profile murdrers in recent years indicate that the murderer was copying/re-enacting the film. Small in number maybe but there's is no doubt that a general desensitisation is an extremely common phenomenon in indivduals who spend a lot of time engaged in violent fantasies as a pastime.
Whether the numbers involved and the seriousness of the side effects merit censorship is something else. The logic of this being that to elliminate road rage we should ban the private car.

Originally posted by Ned Ludd
There is growing evidence that some individuals are strongly influenced by a diet of violent films and games. A small number of high profile murdrers in recent years indicate that the murderer was copying/re-enacting the film. Small in number maybe but there's is no doubt that a general desensitisation is an extremely common phenomenon in indivduals who spend a lot of time engaged in violent fantasies as a pastime.
Whether the numbers involved and the seriousness of the side effects merit censorship is something else. The logic of this being that to elliminate road rage we should ban the private car.

There's still a huge cognitive gap between pressing buttons some buttons and watching pixels shift around on screen compared to actually, physically, carrying out a violent act - this is apparent to any sane human being.

If you're seriously disturbed, maybe the deliniation is not so clear – but then again, that will be because you're seriously disturbed, rather than because you like to play computer games/watch horror films/listen to Marilyn Manson/etc etc.

I do worry that as games become more realistic they will have a more profound effect on the mentality of the gamers.

Doom is one thing, you're shooting at pixelated characters and mechanical spiders, but with the latest games, the characters in the games are very much more realistic.

I'm not saying it's the fault of the game, but you have to worry about someone who enjoys playing a game which involves killing people, and likes it to be as realistic as possible.

In GTA: Vice City, I have raced down the pavement in high powered cars, randomly mowing down innocent pedestrians. I have picked up hookers and taken them to alleyways where I have chainsawed them to death. I have thrown petrol bombs into crowds of innocent nightclubbers. I have robbed a bank in overalls and a hockey mask, armed with a large calibre handgun.

And thoroughly enjoyed every single minute of it.

Not once have I considered doing any of these things outside of Playstation world.



If someone would be driven to re-enact what they have done on a violent computer game, it is they who are the problem - not the game developers.

People who blame games for people going out and killing need to shut up IMO.

Surely if a kid plays say Grand Theft Auto and then goes out stealing cars and shooting people, there's clearly a few screws loose somewhere :loopy:

Also, is it not up to the Parents to monitor whether kids are playing the right kind of games?! I don't mean make a 10 year old play Super Mario Sunshine or some sickeningly cute platform or Pokemon game, but they should just watch and be aware that their kids might be playing violent games...

All I'm saying is that the political correctness brigade and the media are too quick to jump on video games as being the cause of kids going bad these days in my opinion, they should look more to the kids themselves as the cause, ie their background, whether they come from chav estates, what they get up to at School etc.

Thing that gets me is the lad was 17! If the game had an 18 certificate, presumably cos of the gore, then they can hardly blame Rockstar can they? He shouldn't have had one.

You know, after years of tetris i now get an incredible urge to stack things very neatly so they all fit together... maybe video games do effect you... :rolleyes:

I also have the thumb joints of an eighty year old.

removed by spook.

Originally posted by Saifa
Thing that gets me is the lad was 17! If the game had an 18 certificate, presumably cos of the gore, then they can hardly blame Rockstar can they? He shouldn't have had one.

The kid probably looks older than 17.

Far be it for me to agree with one of David Flunkit (Blunkett)'s ideas but I think this compulsory ID card thingy he's on about will help in cases like this, as people will have proof of their age on them at all times, so 17 year olds won't be able to blag being able to get 18 rated games and videos just cos they look older than they are.

Maybe the powers that be should introduce G.C.S.E Common sense into the school curriculum, or even an interactive "Commonsense" game aimed at the kid's who's parents can't be arsed to tell them the difference between right and wrong.
There is definitely a lack of C.S in today's society.

If the parents of the killed child had any sense, they wouldn't have had this splashed all over the media and would have discreetly requested the game company and computer games selelrs were more vigilant in making sure age certificates were stuck to.

All this is going to do is raise the profile of a game i had never heard about before today. I'm now tempted to play it just to see what all the fuss is about.

This will make the game far more popular and will only serve to make the game more desirable to people, including the people under 18 who it isn't intended for. They will want to get hands on a copy much more now.

As for computer games affecting your mind meaning you think that it is legitimate to do these violent things in real life. If someone can't differentiate between real life and fantasy then they are to blame, not the games.

This isn't a new problem either, delusional people have always commited acts they have imagined themselves doing, why should playing a computer game make it any different than your imagination, despite the fact it is less realistic?

Wilf

The company I work for has already withdrawn this game from sale, and we have been told to tell customers that it is as a mark of respect to the victim's family.

I've seen my husband play this game many times, and I don't really see how someone could blur the fantasy/reality lines on this one. All we're seeing here is a repeat of the 80's "video nasty" uproar - there has to be a scapegoat for everything nowadays. God forbid that someone could just be plain evil/mentally disturbed enough to batter someone to death without having a video game to "influence" them.

Gaming does have its good result though, apparently people have become plumbers on the strength of playing Super Mario Brothers games :D :lol:

Didn't max once post something about computer games affecting behaviour?

it was about pac-man, that much I remember...

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Didn't max once post something about computer games affecting behaviour?

it was about pac-man, that much I remember...

Wasn't it in his sig ?

Originally posted by The Boy Wond
Also the murder suspect was playing his heavy metal records backwards.

It is a well known fact that when playing Heavy Metal records backwards you can clearly hear satanic messages.

It's a little known fact that Aleister Crowley books have backward masking in them so if you read them in reverse they sound like JUDAS PRIEST

I am very grateful for the exchange of opinion that this post has caused. From the initial post it is clear that my view leans strongly against censorship of a medium as a reactionary action aimed at pacifying the "moral majority" (more accuratly descired as the "vocal minority"). I have discussed the subject with members of an older generation and found that they believe there to be "too much of this kind of thing" in general and seem to me to fall into the trap of idealising the past and demonising the present.

For me there are far deeper issues at stake than the sensibilties of a family who's child was murdered. As tragic as that might be, banning the game won't bring back their son and arguably won't cleanse the derranged minds of individuals disturbed enough to be motiveated to kill by a videogame.

Each year thousands are killed by cigarettes, firearms and in automobile accidents, but any ban on such things are rejected in place of "tighter controls" and claims that there can be no direct link established between the deaths and the product in question. When someone is killed by a car the response is to suggest that most drivers are responsible, rather than to withdraw the model of car involved in the accident.

He may have been 17, but exactly how old was he? 17 years and 364 days? Does that mean the following day he would be 18 and a completely different person and would not have committed the crime.

Yes, he was too young to own the game, but I still think he would have done it if he were a year older.

Maybe it did influence this guy.
When I was about ten or nine or whatever, me and my friend were obsessed by Final Fantasy. We used to mess around and pretend to cast magic or Omnislash on each other and stuff. My mate even started talking like the characters.
She once even chased me with a piece of rubber pipe and tried to hit me in a Cloud-esque way.

Maybe this guy was only acting out what he saw on screen.

Thankfully we are both over our Final Fantasy addiction! :D

Well, if computer games influnced people's behaviour, the pac-man generation would all now be sat in a darkened room, munching pills and listening to repetitive electronic music...

..errrrr......

but seriously, no way. If a computer game is going to trigger a murder, then it's not the computer game, it's whatever is latent in that person's head that causes the murder. I seriously doubt that a game is even a catalyst, but even if it is, there is always going to be something that triggers that person to become violent.

Remember when ozzy was the devil incarnate, solely responsible for violence andteenage suicides? Now he's a cause celebre.

Looking at this in another way.....

Perhaps these games and films could be uesd to detect deviant behaviour? There's a technique being explored now in the US whereby the brainwaves of a suspect are recorded whilst they're shown items that were at a murder scene. On recognising the items there's a burst of brain waves.

Perhaps in a few years you'll sit someone down in front of a video or a game machine, record their brainwaves and get a feel for whether they're a psycopath or not. Sort of like the kit that was used in the film 'Blade Runner' to detect the replicants.

Of course...it didn't always work properly....

And in a final salue to the power of free enterprise....

Current e-bay rate for this game is about 4 times the retail price.

Joe

"Manhunt" off the hook? (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/04/manhunt_murder_claim/)

Hmmm. I'd like to see what the murdered boy's parents have to say now that it's been discovered he actually owned the game.

I expect his parents must feel totally stupid, making such a fuss, when it was their 14 yr old son who owned it! They should be questioned as to why their 14 yr old son owned it when it has an 18 certificate. Turn up for the books, that was. It's got manhunt loads of publicity and now loads of people want to buy it.

It's sad that the game is being blamed for this tragedy.

How on earth did the parents get the wrong end of the stick. Can understand the press reading what the police said the wrong way round but surely the parents would have known?

Why did the information ever get released that the victim owned the game, hardly relevant? What are they trying to say? Now seems the initial crime is currently overshadowed by some rubbish about a computer game.

Originally posted by march
Why did the information ever get released that the victim owned the game, hardly relevant? What are they trying to say? Now seems the initial crime is currently overshadowed by some rubbish about a computer game.

Perhaps to stem the knee-jerk reaction that occurred. Pulling it off the shelves is no action to take. Simply ask for ID when someone buys it.

Originally posted by march
[B

Why did the information ever get released that the victim owned the game, hardly relevant? What are they trying to say? Now seems the initial crime is currently overshadowed by some rubbish about a computer game. [/B]

I guess it's relevent to the makers of the game who were being taken to court for corperate manslaughter! I assume the case has collasped now.

Or they may let it go to court, get thrown out and then see if they can get some cash out of Dixon's/Game for "lost sales" and "poor publicity". Although quite whether they've suffered from either is a different question.

It seems odd that this was a major headline-grabbing news story when it was reported that the game had been implicated in this tragic murder, yet no such media frenzy to dismiss the link. The public are left with the impression that Manhunt caused this (clearly already disturbed) young person to commit a terrible crime. This case will now only remain in the public's consciousness as further "proof" that tv/film/computer violence will turn everyone evil.

People must realise that they have to take responsibility for their own actions. Blaming media for exposing individuals to material is not the answer. Neither is censoring it. It would be better to ensure children are educated that harming others (mentally/physically/verbally) is unacceptable.

There will always be those who are intent on committing crime, and those who are in need of help to stop themselves doing so, that is the nature of living in a diverse and free society. However, the knee-jerk reaction to this particular tragedy does not help anyone. Especially when it was based on factual inaccuracies.

Originally posted by hotphil
It seems odd that this was a major headline-grabbing news story when it was reported that the game had been implicated in this tragic murder, yet no such media frenzy to dismiss the link.

I remember when the films "Childs Play" were bannded when James Bulger was killed. I don't recall any major press coverage when they were on sale again.

I think the media needs to shut up about all this "video games turn kids into nasty vicious thugs" malarkey.

If some kid plays Grand Theft Auto and then takes it upon himself to go out robbing cars, there's obviously a few bats in his belfry if he can't differentiate between digital imagery and real life :loopy:

Look at our grandparents and senior citizens. Many killed people in the war. Then they came home and became respected members of our society.

Originally posted by Greenback
Do people who play Mario go around jumping on people's heads? Do people who play Sonic the Hedgehog go rolling around the streets, stealing rings from people?


I think the deal is that if it involves "real" people then it can be seen as the "norm". I say real insomuch as being not cartoonish.

My personal experience, of which I am deeply ashamed, is not locking my copy of Vice City away. My 5 year old son was sneaking plays on it and after a while came away with the impression that you could get hit by a car then just get up, dust yourself down and keep on running!!! A great help when it came to the real world. For a while he thought he was invincible!!

So on one hand I'm all for banning it (although I would like a copy myself) just in case "impressionable" kids get hold of it. The problem is when do they stop being impressionable? I'm 30 and I hope I know right from wrong and feel safe in the knowledge that I wouldnt copy anything (lighting farts maybe) but this kid was 17. Now when I was 17 I was a typical 17 year old but knew the difference between right and wrong. So maybe there are deeper issues at play here, potential future serial killer maybe - just waiting for the trigger?