NationStates Jolt Archive

I may be in the minority here but isnt this a massive overreaction?

I know the gameis violent, but its an 18 cert

if we keep taking things off the shelves due to copycat killings etc, then we soon wont have games or dvds at all.

My feeling is that if certain people cannot distinguish between reality and fantasy then that is the real issue. Games and films are given certs for a reason, and if parents want to ignore these then they do so at their own risk

They choose to give there kid/let him have this game and if he get turned a bit mad by it it's there fault. They shouldn't have given him a 18 game. So now after there mistake they want to go and stop all games like this.

I play vice city,medal of honour,counter strike etc and not once have i had the urge to go and massacre people, they are games and games are designed to be played and enjoyed.

thoughts?

My feeling is that if certain people cannot distinguish between reality and fantasy then that is the real issue. Games and films are given certs for a reason, and if parents want to ignore these then they do so at their own risk

They choose to give there kid/let him have this game and if he get turned a bit mad by it it's there fault. They shouldn't have given him a 18 game. So now after there mistake they want to go and stop all games like this.


Its not always the parents who give their kids these games. Lots of people get their games from the internet. If people going mad is really caused by playing these games, then it should be alright to ban them or at least limit access to them heavily, because mad people are a cost that is borne by everyone else. Besides, maybe some games warrant a certification "Not suitable for humans".

Its no use blaming the parents if we have some crazed kid doing something to himself or others. I'm sure the parents feel like shit, but you're not considering the kid herself at all. Children are not property.

P.S. If you really haven't been affected by playing Counter-Strike, then good for you. Just bear in mind that mad people are the last ones to admit to being mad. We have no idea what sorts of twisted ideas you consider normal.

just because one guy in every billion commits a crime due to a videogame doesnt mean they should be banned.

im sure accidents via guns happen far more times in ratio to this, but have they been banned?

but i can definetly see it as the parents fault. granted they cannot be expected to keep tabs on their child all the time, but in areas of great influence they should try and keep track of them. the 18 cert is not recomended for people below 18, but i have many, it just requires the right maturity and mental age for these games to just be games. and if kids dont have that mental maturity, then they shouldnt get the games.(and if they do parents shud whoop their asses into line !!)

Banning something is itself an act of violence since it involves threats of jail.

I play vice city,medal of honour,counter strike etc and not once have i had the urge to go and massacre people, thoughts?
Maybe you didn't play them right? :p
Anyhow, I hear Manhunt is pretty good.

Its not always the parents who give their kids these games. Lots of people get their games from the internet. If people going mad is really caused by playing these games, then it should be alright to ban them or at least limit access to them heavily, because mad people are a cost that is borne by everyone else. Besides, maybe some games warrant a certification "Not suitable for humans".

Its no use blaming the parents if we have some crazed kid doing something to himself or others. I'm sure the parents feel like shit, but you're not considering the kid herself at all. Children are not property.

P.S. If you really haven't been affected by playing Counter-Strike, then good for you. Just bear in mind that mad people are the last ones to admit to being mad. We have no idea what sorts of twisted ideas you consider normal.

Okay - let's step onto a related subject for a second -

Everyone remember Columbine?

Couple of kids (who, it transpired, were the victims of bullying - but, obviously THAT never had anything to do with it), stole some weapons (from their grandfather - I think) and shot up the school.

For weeks, following the shooting. The media blacklisted certain violent influences. It was the games they play, it was the movies they watch, it was the music they listen to.

Heavily featured in the "Music they listen to" articles were the German band KMFDM. They were specifically targetted as an influence, because of the name and content of one song, "Stray Bullet". As a consequence of the media attention, and as a gesture of honour to the victims of the shooting, KMFDM formally parted company.

It was blamed on the band. The band split up.

Why does this matter?

The song "Stray Bullet" wasn't a single. It wasn't on heavy rotation to promote a recent album. It was one of the songs from an album.

And that album wasn't even released until the week after Columbine.

People will blame any media aspect for the immorality and violence of a society. That doesn't mean that the 'media' is a bad thing.

More people have been killed in the name of the Bible or the Koran or the Bagivad Gita than all the other media ever published, put together.

If anything, more realism in games has only weakened the 'games are evil!' argument.
If I walk up to someone in, say GTA, and shoot them in the face, what happens?
They bleed, they scream, they fall down, bleeding and screaming more, and die.
People seeing this scream, and run, and panic.
At that moment, you see the exact consequences of pulling the trigger.
I think you'd have to be pretty messed up already to, after seeing that, think 'cool! I should go do that for real!'

im sure accidents via guns happen far more times in ratio to this, but have they been banned?


Yes, but you should compare the costs and benefits. If the costs are greater than the benefits, then a ban is in order.

When it comes to guns, it just feels so goddamn good and manly to even hold a gun, let alone shoot one. So, its obvious that the benefits obtained from owning guns are way much larger than the costs of some poor sucker getting accidentally shot. Considering all this, I don't get it why my own country forbids owning assault rifles etc. People have to resort to knives and shotguns to kill each other, and we all know that the pleasure gained from holding a knife is next to nothing.

Maybe you didn't play them right? :p
Anyhow, I hear Manhunt is pretty good.

ROFL!


Look, I'm sorry, but a lot of blame is with the parents. The only person that makes sure my little brother doesn't play GTA:Vice City is ME. My parents couldn't care less.

The same thing happened with carmageddon II. Lots of politicians wanted to ban the game but it never happened. And if the game is banned from the shelves, you can always get it from the internet.

and we all know that the pleasure gained from holding a knife is next to nothing.
I don't know. Entertainment was hard ot come by when I was younger.

Yeah, after playing Mario, I want to jump on people's heads and make them crap out coins.



Anybody with any degree of sanity isn't truely effected by games. I think the only things that from videogames that might make me more violent is that I know my weapons a little better and I know how to hold them :eek: so 3bil!

Aust is thinking of Manhunt. A kid killed his friend trying to imitate something from that game. Aust, btw do you really live in yorkshire?

Also, I play GTA, CS, DOD, COD, RTS were I order millions of men into deathraps. I've nver thought, WOW! OMG I SHUD GO BY AN M4 FROM MY NEAREST DE_DUST AND MASSCRE SOME PPLZ!

Most games just aren't like that. Most normal people won't get the feeling of wanting to kill somebody from it.

Well, to date, no one has listed Vice City as a motive for murder...

If your kid has guns, knives, explosives, how do you expect to blame the procurement of these weapons on a video game?

If you look statistically at the weapons carrying demographic, and the gaming demographic, it's easy to see which one is responsible for more violence, don't ya think? ;)

I may be in the minority here but isnt this a massive overreaction?

I know the gameis violent, but its an 18 cert

if we keep taking things off the shelves due to copycat killings etc, then we soon wont have games or dvds at all.

My feeling is that if certain people cannot distinguish between reality and fantasy then that is the real issue. Games and films are given certs for a reason, and if parents want to ignore these then they do so at their own risk

They choose to give there kid/let him have this game and if he get turned a bit mad by it it's there fault. They shouldn't have given him a 18 game. So now after there mistake they want to go and stop all games like this.

I play vice city,medal of honour,counter strike etc and not once have i had the urge to go and massacre people, they are games and games are designed to be played and enjoyed.

thoughts?

ok, yeah, I preety much agree with you, although i dont think its the parents fault, cause, they cant always controll the games there kids are playing. I think if a kids gona copy what he/she ses in a video game or a movie, and just do it cause he/she saw it, he/she realy has problems, i mean yeah, a 5 or 6 year old kid copyin what he saw, Well if hes 5 or 6, his parents should be watchin and know what he/shes watchin, but 10 and up, thats where a kid has problems, i mean im 14, and play Vice city, the getaway, GTA3, silent scope, half life, etc, and have seen all the terminators, and plenty of war and violence movies, and have been playin/watchin them for 2 or 3 years now, have i ever had an urge to shoot some one, no, have i ever wanted to steal a car, no, I mean, its a big conterversy thats realy hard to come to an agrement on.

1) parents need to do their damn job and keep tabs on their kids before complainign to the government and suing this andthat. you see the columbine kids mother? im not trying to be mean but she literally looked like a crack whore, i doubt she couldve cared less what her kid was doing

2) and video games and music are damned scapegoats, ooh i killed some one, i will blame a video game or music and everyone will pity me and hate the game and developers because im just a victim of violent media, bullshit

Aust is thinking of Manhunt. A kid killed his friend trying to imitate something from that game. Aust, btw do you really live in yorkshire?

Yes... and James Bulger died because kids watched "Childs Play 3"...

Which is weird, if you think about it... I thought I'd seen that movie, but I don't remember Chucky inserting batteries into anyone and then throwing them in front of a train.

It was sick and wrong. The kids (a misnomer, considering how old they were) knew what they were doing, and they did it for a kick. They didn't do it because the movies said so, or because god said so, or because the dog next-door said so. They did it as a source of entertainment.

The watching of horror movies may have really happened, but that is surely a symptom of the problem, not the cause. Why were these children so obsessed with gore and death.

Look less to the media, and more to the upbringing.

What about Charles Manson?

I mean, I'm no fan of the Beatles, and I didn't care for the White album...

but listening to "Helter Skelter" never made me want to get together a group of mates and go carve up a famous movie directors pregnant girlfriend.

You blame whatever seems the easiest way of disclaiming responsibility.

:eek: It's the Smurfs that made me do it!!! They are all so blue and happy!!!The Smurfs I tell you!!!!!
AAAAARRRGGGHHH..............

http://www.plif.com/archive/wc161.gif

:eek: It's the Smurfs that made me do it!!! They are all so blue and happy!!!The Smurfs I tell you!!!!!
AAAAARRRGGGHHH..............
seriously, that song drove me crazy so i drew and quartered my friends :rolleyes:

As a random point, I've heard them saying on the news that Manhunt 'tells [the player] to kill.'

As anyone who's played Manhunt should be aware, the game doesn't tell you to kill. A guy in the game called Starkweather does. And to be honest, if you think Starkweather is a worthy role model, you're fucking doomed.

seriously, that song drove me crazy so i drew and quartered my friends :rolleyes:
Yeah. The Smurfs have that effect on people. They are evil!!!!

I dont think we should ban violent video games - like others on this thread, all b/c one in 100 million ppl do something stupid (influenced by a game) doesnt reflect the whole group. Plus, I've heard from countless sources that some games are good for you

Yeah. The Smurfs have that effect on people. They are evil!!!!
It seems like the South African government was right to ban them.

It seems like the South African government was right to ban them.
Yes!!!!! Cause how can anyone be blue and happy at the same time? It's not natural!!!!
They banned them?

I dont think we should ban violent video games - like others on this thread, all b/c one in 100 million ppl do something stupid (influenced by a game) doesnt reflect the whole group. Plus, I've heard from countless sources that some games are good for you
Yeah. Like Hitman. You learn to be stealthy and carefull. And not to rush in guns blazing. Cause that could get you killed.

Yes!!!!! Cause how can anyone be blue and happy at the same time? It's not natural!!!!
They banned them?
Yes, apparently they are communist. Think about it, they all dress and look the same, and have no interest in profit.

(Honestly though, they were banned because they were seen as communistic).

it is not the games we should be looking it is the eliment that these influences aparently adversly afect. these kids who go on rampages are unstable and probly would go nuts without the games and movies. it is the society that creats them that is to blame not the games. south korea, australia, england, canada all these countrys have the same violent games and movies but not the same problem as the usa with people going crazy and killing lots of people. now what exactly it is that makes the difference i dont know, but games and movies are just easy targets for people to blame. they are not and never have been at falt censorship of said games its not needed.

Yes, apparently they are communist. Think about it, they all dress and look the same, and have no interest in profit.

(Honestly though, they were banned because they were seen as communistic).
Hmm never thought about it. But now that you mention it. Pappa Smurfs outfit is RED!!!!

Hmm never thought about it. But now that you mention it. Pappa Smurfs outfit is RED!!!!
And they share everything, including the women (woman).

And they share everything, including the women (woman).
Well they have to. Since there is only one woman.

Well they have to. Since there is only one woman.

I thought there were two?

Yeah. Like Hitman. You learn to be stealthy and carefull. And not to rush in guns blazing. Cause that could get you killed.

The same goes for Splinter Cell. The game is designed so that your objectives are NOT TO KILL PEOPLE!!!

I thought there were two?
I only remember Smurfette. (is that her name?)

The same goes for Splinter Cell. The game is designed so that your objectives are NOT TO KILL PEOPLE!!!
Now wheres the fun in that? :confused:

I only remember Smurfette. (is that her name?)

Pointless googling reveals there were three.

http://bluebuddies.com/help/smurf_names_and_list_of_the_smurfs.htm

Pointless googling reveals there were three.

http://bluebuddies.com/help/smurf_names_and_list_of_the_smurfs.htm
http://bluebuddies.com/help/jpg/Sassette_Smurfling.jpg

But this ones just wrong.

I wouldn't but anything past those commie bastards though.

:sniper:

i think they should just ban the internet

Personally i think they should ban UNREALISTIC games and movies. As one person said in Vice City when you pull the trigger they scream and all that good stuff, just like in real life. It exposes him to the consequences of real life, such as the police will be after you, you'll go to jail, its not good etc.

Now in Wily Coatie (i think thats how you spell it) he blows himself up most times with ACME products. He doesn't die though. This teaches kids that blowing yourself up can be fun. Also this one kid did die because he jumped off the roof of his house after seeing an episode of superman.

Videogames are no more responsible for violent actions than lollipops are likely to cause homosexual desires in straight guys. It's just a scapegoat for pseudopoliticians to use to take away the blame from the registered voters.

A lot of you people are blaming "society" or "upbringing" in being the real source of evil twisted people, not music, tv or games. I'd like to point out that music, tv and games are a part of what makes up "society", and I'd include music, tv and games as having a part in a child's "upbringing". You can't just treat them as separate from everything else. Furthermore, parents can't just say "Never listen to Metallica" 'cause in most cases it won't work. It might work if parents were allowed to say "If you listen to Metallica, we'll castrate you and sell you to an Italian church choir". Fortunately that's just not an option.

I'm not claiming that a single game does anyone do anything, but the games are still a part of a bigger picture. IF games do have an effect on people doing crazy stuff, then controlling them is a viable option, at least where children are concerned. On the other hand, if some children are just born crazy, then it really doesn't matter. It just doesn't seem to be that way.

Its simple. The media & politicians are going to blame games & film. Their the easiest target. They say "oh no its too graphic!!!!"
What about bugs bunny and all that they beat the shit out of eachother and nver got hurt. Wonder how many kids imitated that!
But think about it, a kid shoots someone, are the media & politicos going to blame society saying your all bad parents!!!! or blame the evil game industries and film companies who are only out to make money!
I've always played violent games, there fun! but their not real. I know better.

Videogames are no more responsible for violent actions than lollipops are likely to cause homosexual desires in straight guys. It's just a scapegoat for pseudopoliticians to use to take away the blame from the registered voters.

AMEN!!!!

What about literature. I found books to be a hell of a lot more violent than anything else.

If someone feels like hurting someone/something, then it's their own fault, not the fault of the game. If they can't manage their anger, it's because of them, not because of the game. If you want to ban violent games for something that is totally the cause of a person itself, you're stupid.

What about literature. I found books to be a hell of a lot more violent than anything else.
I doubt that many people read books to get their daily dose of violence. In fact I'd be willing to bet that most people are pacified by violent videogames. It helps to get it out of their system so they don't go out and to nasty things in real life. That's how it is for me anyways.

If someone feels like hurting someone/something, then it's their own fault, not the fault of the game. If they can't manage their anger, it's because of them, not because of the game. If you want to ban violent games for something that is totally the cause of a person itself, you're stupid.

Your reasoning doesn't really help if someone killed his little sister. Nobody is really interested in hearing that it was the older sibling's own fault because he should have controlled his anger. I'd rather think that people are more interested in why he felt like hurting someone and why he couldn't control his anger.

I doubt that many people read books to get their daily dose of violence. In fact I'd be willing to bet that most people are pacified by violent videogames. It helps to get it out of their system so they don't go out and to nasty things in real life. That's how it is for me anyways.

I agree. But the point i was trying to get across is that as a rule a good book can influence a person more than a film or game. Yet politicians (to my knowledge) never blame books for this incidents.
I mean GTO, driving into a crowd of people or having a sniper rifle and using it is fun, but i'm going to do it in the real world.

Lets not blame the abusive parent(s), or the cruel students at school who tease and bully, or the boss who treats you less than human...it couldn't be any of these social factors that would make someone crazy/mad enough to go on a trigger happy rampage. Its gotta be the video game!

Your reasoning doesn't really help if someone killed his little sister. Nobody is really interested in hearing that it was the older sibling's own fault because he should have controlled his anger.

The doesn't make pointing fingers at anything else right, though.

If someone feels like hurting someone/something, then it's their own fault, not the fault of the game. If they can't manage their anger, it's because of them, not because of the game. If you want to ban violent games for something that is totally the cause of a person itself, you're stupid.
You see it’s much easier to point fingers at as few things as possible. The manufacturers are easy to get at because there are relatively fewer numbers of them that there are distributors and even customers. It’s the exact same things for smoking and guns. Even though it’s the people who are mostly responsible for whatever predicament it may be, they refuse to accept responsibility and it’s much cheaper for the legal system to go after manufacturers instead of customers. So the law gets on the manufactures case because they're cheap and lazy and don't want to look bad in front of all the nice registered voters.

I mean GTO, driving into a crowd of people or having a sniper rifle and using it is fun, but i'm going to do it in the real world.

Somebody find out where this guy lives fast. And don't give him a driving license.

Your reasoning doesn't really help if someone killed his little sister. Nobody is really interested in hearing that it was the older sibling's own fault because he should have controlled his anger.

Don't you think so? I parents taught their child better control, maybe the little sister would still be here. if the child is allowed to get away with murder (sorry for the pun) then how can you blame them when they do something wrong?

Somebody find out where this guy lives fast. And don't give him a driving license.

to late! been driving now for 6 years. never had a ticket. Never speed (well never caught anyway). no problems with the law.
Yet playing a game like GTO, well you can do it and its a game. so have fun. Hell i try to drive the car of a building, not going to do that in real life either.

Don't you think so? I parents taught their child better control, maybe the little sister would still be here. if the child is allowed to get away with murder (sorry for the pun) then how can you blame them when they do something wrong?

I didn't say that the kid should be let off the hook. You could behead him and parade his headless corpse on the town square as an example for all I care. Maybe you could tell every prospective parent here how to teach children selfcontrol? Its a pretty easy way out to always blame the parents for everything children do, too.

Hey I have the perfect solution it treats everyone fairly and still encourages kids to not commit needless crimes...
Ban the crime!
I mean seriously, banning doesn't solve anything. And until the kid is 18 their parents are responsible for them (in the US, but that doesn't matter, the age is arbitrary- besides, I'd like to think people in other countries have more sense than we do, though I know I shouldn't think that)- if you teach them from an early age to have halfway decent taste, they won't WANT to listen to Metallica when they are older. Someone said earlier that parents can't control what some kids do because the kids are "crazed" and running around doing bad stuff regardless of what their parents say...Well then, as you just said, they're crazed, and they're gonna do crazy stuff no matter what the video game they just played says.

Don't punish an inanimate object, punish the harmful actions of PEOPLE
Don't punish alcohol, punish people who drink and drive
Don't punish drugs, punish people who harm others because of drugs
Don't punish guns, punish people who shoot others not in self defense
Don't punish games/music/tv/books/etc..., punish people who kill others for fun!

What is wrong with our society anymore that we can't be held responsible for anything? We can't even hold our murderers responsible anymore?

Lets not blame the abusive parent(s), or the cruel students at school who tease and bully, or the boss who treats you less than human...it couldn't be any of these social factors that would make someone crazy/mad enough to go on a trigger happy rampage. Its gotta be the video game!
Reminds me of this pleasant little ditty by Pitchshifter called 'As Seen On TV'

Another group of monster teenagers shot up their school today. What makes them do it? Video games? Marilyn Manson? Oh it can't be the parents, or the fact that schools sucks, or that
the jocks do get patted on the head every time they beat up the weirdo's and the jobs you get once you graduate are stupid, boring, meaningless, and a dead end to insanity.
I can't deny it's killing me, no one loses on TV. On TV.
When Sport Utiliy Vehicles are no longer enough...you need the TERMINATOR. Stuck in traffic in Lost Angeles? Drive over the tops of everybody else. You'll crush 'em before the
Cops can catch up with you. Your precious artifact shild needs to be safe, they're talking to a kid who's skin is a different colur? Grab the kid and mow 'em down!
Each new hot generation has a statemen they wanna call their own. Tattoos? Piercings? that's for Moms and Dads. What you want do is spend your allowance on Devil horn implats,
Elephand Man head, designer tails, third leg, fourth leg -- everyone a hermaphrodite! And on a lighter note...

Ok, violent video games should be kept away from young children, but that already happens to the extent of certifications.
Ive played violent video games since i was about 11 because my parents knew that i understood right from wrong. Parents are responsible for telling their kids whats right and whats wrong from an early age and a failure to do this can lead to all sorts of problems in later life - crime etc.
With regard to why i play video games like GTA etc. i find them relaxing. I enjoy being able to take out my anger and pent up stress on fictional characters. Its a safe and controlled way of anger management in my opinion. They shouldnt be banned for the masses just because of an isolated incident.
Another really good example of media hype making things a hundred times more sensationalised than it needs to be over something that just doesnt warrant the coverage.

Ive played violent video games since i was about 11 because my parents knew that i understood right from wrong.

Congratulations - you have achieved something that all the philosophers, ethicists and theologians of human history have never quite managed to do! Care to enlighten us all as to how we too can understand the difference between right and wrong?

Congratulations - you have achieved something that all the philosophers, ethicists and theologians of human history have never quite managed to do! Care to enlighten us all as to how we too can understand the difference between right and wrong?
I think youre taking me out of context... what i mean by that is that i know that its wrong to pick up an assault rifle from my local assault rifle shop and go round killing people in the real world...

I found a retro version of Frogger the other day. If I stop posting, it's because I've had a sudden urge to leg it across the motorway dodging traffic.

I think youre taking me out of context... what i mean by that is that i know that its wrong to pick up an assault rifle from my local assault rifle shop and go round killing people in the real world...

If they were invading soldiers from another country would it be right?
If they were planning to rape and kill your relatives would it be right?
If they were very likely to be terrorists would it be right?
If they were planning to break into your house and steal everything you own would it be right?
If they were child abusers would it be right?

While many violent games hold no redeeming quality whatever, they do not cause murder and mayham, M&M were doing just fine before video games came along, and will continue to be acceptable forms in this society for long after these games loose popularity. These games simply put into the light some of the many things our nation values. Power and Violence.

The reason i thought most people buy video games was so they didn't have to do that action in real life.

For example the EA sports range has a new footbal game out every year and sells millions of copies.

Now if you go out to your local park i don't think you will see anywhere near the number of people playing the sport as you would if you did ban football games (for what ever reason) as they have less things to distract them.

My point is that without these games people have less of a reason not to do it.

With the sort of mind that is willing to kill because they thought it was a good idea, i would prefer to know they are in their home with a creative outlet rather than roaming the streets with nothing to do apart from finding something that they think is a good idea.

But anyway thats my opinion on the matter now i'm off to take magic mushroom thanks to mario, try to get a hedgehog to run really fast thanks to Sonic and rob the nearest tomb whilst killing wild animals thanks to Lara.

Aust is thinking of Manhunt. A kid killed his friend trying to imitate something from that game. Aust, btw do you really live in yorkshire?
I do, it was in the Mail this morning. 2nd day running.

The strange thing is there are a lot of other games that have violance in that arn't picked on. Like Mario (How many Koopers has he killed?) and Zelda (A sword that is even better at killing things is centeral to the plot), SSBM (12 caricters fighting) Pokemon (Animal cruilty-Violance-Eletric shocks don't kill you). And yet these are given 3+ citificets, crazy.

So, would a game portraying and rewarding the playing for committing graphic acts of rape or child abuse, providided that the distribution of the game is strictly monitored to adults only, be acceptable? It is afterall only a game?

Examples of this kind of thing - the game from the early 80s called "General Custer's Revenge" where the aim of the game is to rape American Indian women tied to totem poles? Or coming from another direction - the game produced for the Spectrum called "Paki-Basher", which is self-explanatory, or that game which circulated in the early 90s where the player was a Concentration Camp commander and received points for killing Jews and other 'Untermenschen'?

They are, after all, just games...

So, would a game portraying and rewarding the playing for committing graphic acts of rape or child abuse, providided that the distribution of the game is strictly monitored to adults only, be acceptable? It is afterall only a game?

Examples of this kind of thing - the game from the early 80s called "General Custer's Revenge" where the aim of the game is to rape American Indian women tied to totem poles? Or coming from another direction - the game produced for the Spectrum called "Paki-Basher", which is self-explanatory, or that game which circulated in the early 90s where the player was a Concentration Camp commander and received points for killing Jews and other 'Untermenschen'?

They are, after all, just games...
To me no. I'd never buy one or play on one. But you can't just stop games coming out, it's freedom of speech ect. Now I'd hate those games to come out, but if someones going to produce them then thats there choice and if someones going to sell them, thats there choice too.

Ok I am from the UK, and recently there has been a killing that has been blamed on a computer game.

According to the radio news etc... young children look at these games and think that they can do the same. They then wont to re-enact these things. In that case I am a silent assasin (hitman codename 47), a female top secret agent (NOLF), an army general from when the roman empire fell (AOE2), and a jedi knight with the ability to weild the force (JK2 and JA.). Hmmm.... I dont think so. They say that games which show the active killings of humans on the screeen in real life situation (cs, dod, halflife, and all ww2 games) are what affect these people. Ok so they cant handle it. HENSE THE 18 CERT.

If parents let there children play these then it is there faiult. Most parernts in the UK now have there computers downstairs so they can keep an eye on there kids on the net. true mine is in me room, but still my parents know the games I have. After all its right next to my DVD collection not hard to miss really.

My point is, if a kid gets hold of a game that has a 18 cert and he is 16 then the game should not be banned, otherwise it would be the same as banning a 18 cert film cos a 16 yr old saw it and killed. They may not be able to stop things like this but if you think banning a game is going to help your wrong cos that will just make people a little angry.

Why don we all go back to games like crystal caves etc... all good games after all.

Dan

I didn't say that the kid should be let off the hook. You could behead him and parade his headless corpse on the town square as an example for all I care. Maybe you could tell every prospective parent here how to teach children selfcontrol? Its a pretty easy way out to always blame the parents for everything children do, too.

I'm not solely blaming the parents. Of course there is more to it than that. But during a child's formative years the parents play a very important role. And unfortunately in a lot of the case where some kids gone berzerk and shot up a class, I would blame the parents. You know the type, sweet, loving, nether lifted a hand or their voice against the child. Always told him how special he was, etc.
There also peer pressure that needs to be taking into account but seems in general to come around at a later date.

I've played Wolf3d, Doom, Quake, Half Life, Cod, Sof (II), RTCW, UT, OFP, Battlefield and some RTS's. I'm a nice guy, i never got the idea of killing or even hurting someone IRL. I simply couldnt kill anyone innocent.
But i do understand that some (young) people do not see the difference between real and fiction.

So, would a game portraying and rewarding the playing for committing graphic acts of rape or child abuse, providided that the distribution of the game is strictly monitored to adults only, be acceptable? It is afterall only a game?

Examples of this kind of thing - the game from the early 80s called "General Custer's Revenge" where the aim of the game is to rape American Indian women tied to totem poles? Or coming from another direction - the game produced for the Spectrum called "Paki-Basher", which is self-explanatory, or that game which circulated in the early 90s where the player was a Concentration Camp commander and received points for killing Jews and other 'Untermenschen'?

They are, after all, just games...

True it is similar. But those sort of games are to insight hatred more than anything else. That custer's revenge game i'm not so sure about. I know she's tied to the pole, but they just have sex don't they? What i mean is she does not scream out NO LEAVE ME ALONE or anything like that, or does she?

But how are we to set any sort of limit?

The way I see this issue is quite simple. The huge majority of people who play games know wrong from right, and they would never, ever repeat anything they did in a violent game. The people that commit these acts obviously don't know right from wrong, and can potentially be influenced by various things - including games. Whether or not these things influence them to kill, or the fact that they are psychos is reason enough remains to be seen.

Charles Manson was metioned before, he was obviously a psycho. He thought messages in the Beatles music told him to have those people killed. If he had never heard the Beatles then something else would have came along that he blamed for what he did. But I think it was just the fact that he was a psycho that caused him to kill, not any music etc that he blamed it on. Were the Beatles charged with inciting murder? Obviously not.

Same for the Manhunt case. This 17yr old that killed the 14yr old would have done it eventually even if he had never played Manhunt. He became obsessed with the game, but if he had never played it he no doubt would have became obsessed with something else - maybe he saw a Terminator movie and decided to copy that. It could have been a hundred thousand things, anything with violent content. And violence is real, it happens, and therefore is going to end up being in our media in various formats. And you can't ban that just because a handful of people are unbalanced lunatics.

That custer's revenge game i'm not so sure about. I know she's tied to the pole, but they just have sex don't they? What i mean is she does not scream out NO LEAVE ME ALONE or anything like that, or does she?


Seeing as how it ran on the venerable ATARI 2600 console the capabilities and possibilities were somewhat limited - but the very name of the game itself "....Revenge" certainly seems to indicate that rape rather than happy mutually pleasurable sexual congress between two consenting adults involving bondage equipment was the message it was attempting to send out.

Why would you ban violent games? What fun would games be if there wasn't violence!! Ban WWF wrestling, that has the same amount of influence on our kids!!

I was watching a news report on this.

In it a mother said how these games could influence children's perspectives (such as her 15 year old who plays manhunt) of what is acceptable and the government should move to ban their sale.

The government has already banned the sale of extremely violent games to minors in this country (UK) by giving them a legislation backed age rating. Shops should not be selling the to children.

In a free society, it is very hard to stop these games ending up in the hands of anyone who tries hard to get them (although I feel that larger stores should do more), so it is necessary fo parents to retrict acess.

Governments can only do so much if local authorities (in this case parents) do not pay attention to the problem and act accordingly.

It has been a proven fact though (in research conducted in the last year or two) that violent video games actually reduce the chance of violent acts. This being said, i would like to draw everyone's attention to a few of the smilies here...

:headbang: :sniper: :mp5:

The thing is, nearly everyone has a release somewhere, whether it be through art, music, sport, writing, etc, etc, etc... violent video games tend to act as one of teh best releases of pent up energy that would otherwise go into hitting someone for real. I'm not saying, however, that video games are entirely blame free.

some people get the idea for a violent spree/rampage from video games. I'm not going to argue that. the fact is, they were prone to violent acts before hand, and the video game gave them ideas. The things some of these people go through are horrific (and then again some people are just sick) and I frankly can't blame them for needing a release.

Violent acts are just another release. Don't get me wrong... it isn't good... it shouldn't be tolerated. but the misconception is that the video games hype people into uncaring, violent, savage beasts. The people who commit Violent acts are like that anyway. There isn't a game that makes people want to suddenly break character and act violently. violent behaviour isnt' really the fault of the game, it is the result of violent people who play it. it doesn't create the anger, it merely chanels it.

Instead of banning violent games, the government would be better off providing counselling to people who really need it, as opposed to those who can afford it and have nothing better to do with their lives.

Violent games only cause violence in inherently violent kids. If the parents taught the kids right from wrong, moral from immoral, there would be no issue.

Notice violent games have only been an issue recently? Back 'in the day', parents were strict, and disciplined their kids when they did wrong (this is in no way supporting physical violence as a means of discipline). But the age we live in now, the parents don't give a crap. I'd say at least 30% of the kids in my school are pot-heads. Where are their parents? Where are their morals? Where's their common sense, even?

Hey I have the perfect solution it treats everyone fairly and still encourages kids to not commit needless crimes...
Ban the crime!
I mean seriously, banning doesn't solve anything. And until the kid is 18 their parents are responsible for them (in the US, but that doesn't matter, the age is arbitrary- besides, I'd like to think people in other countries have more sense than we do, though I know I shouldn't think that)- if you teach them from an early age to have halfway decent taste, they won't WANT to listen to Metallica when they are older. Someone said earlier that parents can't control what some kids do because the kids are "crazed" and running around doing bad stuff regardless of what their parents say...Well then, as you just said, they're crazed, and they're gonna do crazy stuff no matter what the video game they just played says.

Don't punish an inanimate object, punish the harmful actions of PEOPLE
Don't punish alcohol, punish people who drink and drive
Don't punish drugs, punish people who harm others because of drugs
Don't punish guns, punish people who shoot others not in self defense
Don't punish games/music/tv/books/etc..., punish people who kill others for fun!

What is wrong with our society anymore that we can't be held responsible for anything? We can't even hold our murderers responsible anymore?


WOW, someone who has an idea, run for parliment, ill vote for you, someone I actually agree with, stop giving criminals excuses, they are responsible for their own actions that said:

"if video games effected us we would all be popping pills and listening to repeatitive music after playing pac man............ Oh"

Violent games only cause violence in inherently violent kids. If the parents taught the kids right from wrong, moral from immoral, there would be no issue.

Glossing over the fact that right & wrong are not black and white issues here, are we not?

EDIT: and what exactly is an 'inherently violent' kid? Should we be sending these people to secure institutions to protect the rest of society if they are 'inherently' violent/

Seeing as how it ran on the venerable ATARI 2600 console the capabilities and possibilities were somewhat limited - but the very name of the game itself "....Revenge" certainly seems to indicate that rape rather than happy mutually pleasurable sexual congress between two consenting adults involving bondage equipment was the message it was attempting to send out.

true enough. but it was an extreme that i don't think was repeated by other games. Could be wrong though