Manhunt - To blame for a murder?

[dkmech]

Remembered another "game to blame" story. The washington sniper - there were news stories claiming that it might be a teenager, bent on Counter-Strike, taking the game to the masses. And would you believe it! It actually was a military trained marksman. What are the chances of that?!

I think the games can affect people who are already disturbed. I personally once tried to attract the cops in GTA vice city by shooting pedestrians from a multistorey car park. I found that my position gave me total invulnerability from the police and i was able to stay there shooting off limbs for a long time. And then i felt disgusted. For me hurting innocent people felt wrong even in the game. And generally i drove around pedestrians and avoided shooting anyone for no reason.

Another example was that in KOTOR i found it very difficult to make dark side choices, as even in the game i want to be good, help people and avoid unnecessary violence. I finished at the top of the light scale.

I think my upbringing is to blame for that. And in spite of playing a lot of violent games i still know whats good and whats evil.

As for Manhunt - I haven't played it, but read the reviews. They might've gone over the top there. But if it gets banned I am worried that every other game may have trouble getting through the censorship. Btw - iirc carmageddon was banned in brazil and in some countries people were replaced with green-blooded zombies.

[Grey M@a]

"I acctually thought postal2 was bad... not that it should be disalowed... just that there was too much gore for my liking (flamethrower + pedestrian anyone?). I would have turned the gore down or off... but didnt like the game that much anyway (although some parts of it were very funny) so I havent really played it much."

0.o you can't pick on postal that was a good game where else could i urinate on people without being arrested

[SilentDeath]

yea.. I wish I played more acctually... but the constant loading annoyed me.. and I didnt do very well in it.. too much effort to start again... I got too far...But postal2 was a great game... funny the bit at the start with the protesters, lmfao!

[paradidle]

The murderer was a crack head, pot smoking nonse. He was a bully, depressed and generally just an arse.

If anyone here thinks that computer games are to blame you have some serious personal issues or "not all your dogs are barking". Ive played the game before, you dont see me knifing someone up! Dozer made a good point about parents blaming everyone and everything else other than themsleves.

This shows how much some parents are actually in touch with their kids. If they ban video games for violence, I want them to ban ALL violent films, ALL music which features violence, rape, murder etc, I want them to ban the 9'oclock news for showing me news, murder, famine, civil war, rape, violent attacks etc...you see where Im going with this?

U cant blame a video game for a murder.

GUNS KILL PEOPLE. VIDEO GAMES DONT.

LOL imagine trying to ban Duke Nukem!!!! OMG!!!



GUNS IN AMERICA KILL MORE PPL THAN VIDEO GAMES. BUT WHY ARENT GUNS BANNED???

[Allen]

Originally Posted by |SilentDeath|

Big_AL - dont you think game developers should be more responsibe? Really in most games I couldnt care less (and I still dont) but as ive started typing im going to say my opinion.
Game developers (should) know that atleast 70% of the population are chavs (at a guessed based on crawley, the town I live ). Ask your self WHY do they need to push the extremes of voilence.
Sure it might not have affected you, but it is proven that if someone has never been exposed to voilence before (at that level) and has mental problems or something (which are quite common!) then showing them it can turn them into psychotic serial killers.

Yes, perhaps, but how do you control who the games get sold to? Should you have to have some kind of mental probing before you can purchase a game that could affect your mental state, and that would include a LOT of games...

I don't know the solution, just trying to air my views...

[SilentDeath]

maybe stop the underage chavs from buying them in the first place... hmm.. maybe ...


but paradidle does have a good point... as do everyone else that said it. Parents should not have any right over released media. They dont want there kids playing it, fine - but they shouldnt be able to stop anyone else from playing it. Anyway if it does get banned... people will assume itll be permeneant ban... and just warez it .. not like the developers are losing out of a banned game... not that I would even think of warezing... I own all my games

[paradidle]

Basically, u have to have the predisposition to be able to kill someone, and the game MAY have provked or triggered the guy to do it, but any number of things could have triggered it lol someone swearing at him or maybe a fly buzzing around him pissing him off haha

[Devilbod]

Dont flame me for this, I agree that games shouldnt be used as scapegoats for the mentaly unstable but...

The kill scenes in Manhunt are a bit too close to the knuckle and you could say that it did show the kid HOW to kill someone, I know they could just watch any number of films to find that out but the difference with Manhunt is that you get to see it 100 time through out the game and from various different angles.

But then again it isnt real and shouldnt be treated as such, if you went down that street many of the great books and film would have to be banned.

[mr_anderson187]

were all berating the games her tbh, but there are a lot more thigns to take into consideration, im an a level media studies student, and we done this krap in school about moral panicks, its a a frenzy whipped up and blown out of proportion fromt he small beginning, and it cant jsut be one factor, its loads of things, tv, radio, THE INTERNET (lol), and many others, even theyre upbringing, and stuff, maybe manhunt just pushed this wee man over the edge, or we could be wrong altogether, that he used manhunt to releive the stress he had frombeing a bully or what, there have been loads of studies done about the media affecting the way we act, and there are as many for the violence related incident as there are against, it, u just have to have it in you to do it,

well thats only my 2p's worth

[directhex]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/07/29/uk.manhunt/

Peter Joyce QC prosecuting told the court that the defendant had planned to rob his younger friend to help repay a drugs debt.

[directhex]

cars kill more kids in england per year han anything else. we haven't banned those though, have we?

or sports? there are more deaths and injuries from sports-related activities than videogame-related activities, from extreme sports accidents to soccer riots. ban sports? not gonna happen is it?

perhaps appalling excuses for parents should stop using the idiot box as a surrogate, and damn well do some parenting.

i have absolutely no remorse for the coke-head's mother, and feel saddened that the blame is being throws out in all the wrong places by the victim's mother

[directhex]

anyone remember Jamie Bulger? these appalling excuses for parents obviously didn't when they let their kids have media inappropriate for them, and get onto drugs

[RoGuE|SaBeR]

All very good points people.

In the games defence -

It definately cannot be held directly responsible for what happened, no court on earth could convict Rockstar of breaking any laws. There are so many other factors in this case which are often blurred out to give the media a firm, tangible victim to burn at the stake - ie. the game itself. The game was certified by the BBFC and was deemed suitable for public sale and WAS NOT banned.

Against the game -

Perhaps developers have a moral obligation thay they are not fulfilling? I doubt anyone can say that with a subject matter which is portrayed in such graphic detail Manhunt was the most tasteful of games.
Once more don't annihilate me over this. Yes free speech, creative license yadayada blah blah I have no problems with degress of violence in games but when the sole focus of the game is violent murder and rewards violent murder, what does this say of the player who derives satisfaction from it? Let's take probably the second most contraversial shooter on the violence front - Soldier of Fortune.

The sole purpose of this game isn't to be violent and to portray violence in the most horrific and violent way possible. Granted that at the time of release it was the most graphic game available but there was a further objective to the game - stop the bad guy. Save the day.
Manhunt - Kill as many people as you can, as violently as you can for some guy you haven't meet. End of story.

I almost can't believe I'm typing all this because I've always been behind the games industry in a case like this however I just feel that this time that the line has been crossed.

Perhaps I was wrong in saying that the game should've been pulled. There is no concrete reason why it should have been pulled off the shelf other than that a parent is hypothesising that the game was a factor in his son's act of murder when the son clearly had problems to begin with.
Once more it is just the media placing the blame on a convenient victim to sell papers and stir up the excriment.

Perhaps a better question would be should the game have been made?

[mr_anderson187]

no doubt thsi game will definitly serve as an example after all the hype that has been created, anyone remember hitman 2? it crossed teh race relations act, by the protagonists shootign the hindu job men with the turbans lol, it shows the pickyness and cheap people over here who cant take a light earted game, or are we being too leniant, its jsut a step in time until some game crosses te sex law acts on woman with skimpy clothes(dead or alive 3, or even dead or alive: xtreme beach voleyball) lol, we could then have another frenzy, well have to wait and see until then...

[directhex]

hitman 2 featured a mission whereby you were the protagonist in a real-life massacre in a sikh temple, the 1984 Golden Temple massacre in Amritsar

it was removed for being tasteless

[Devilbod]

I bought the game and in truth was more than a little shocked by it which was an unusal thing for me, I've play SoF, Counter Stike, Hitman and various other games that the idea was to kill someone and not batted an eyelid. Still I played the game all the way through and it became obvious that the snuff vids where more of an selling point than an actual part of the gameplay.
Thats what Rockstar do they make games that tend to generate there own hype by the content.
And in that I do think that Rockstar are pushing it a tiny bit too far.

Manhunt was OTT hence the 18 certificate and while you can say if you ban this where do you stop it is a new media (computer games), one that has only been around for some 10 years and each year is growing closer and closer to real life in terms of gameplay and graphics. And unlike books or films where you are watching or following someone else doing the killing with a computer game you are the one controling the killing, granted some games create stories or characters so it isnt you personaly but you are the one pulling the strings.
That it what raises the question about should people take a look at morality of computer games.
It's still very much a grey area especaily these days, lots of film that where banned when I was a kid are now on general release things do seem a lot less strict these day, the f word only appeared in 18 certificate films now its in 15, is this all good or bad thing? I havent got a clue! lucky for me I dont have any children and dont have to worry about that as a parent.
Is this all linked to the rise in voilent crime? Who knows you cant say for cretain because every arguement for, there is an arguement against making it almost impossible.
Its mostly down to your own opinion, how you feel when someone say "Guns dont kill people, people kill people." and another say "By giving a person a gun your making a potential killer."
I know from various reports over the last year or two that it is something that is a worry in the games industry, the ex-uk boss Nintendo slamed Rockstar not that long ago for making games that where too voilent and using that as a selling point. And a couple of other figure heads in the industry have spoken out saying that things are heading out of control in this area.

Using the agruement that cars kill people, guns kill people, smoking kills people etc ban the lot! Does have one major flaw every year new measures are introduced to try to stop that from happening, speed limits, safety restrictions, age limits and so on and so forth. And I know that somethings on cars, guns etc have been banned or redesigned because they posed an even greater risk to human life so if one computer game gets banned (out of thousands) because it has a potential to sway a mind to violence is it really a bad thing?
If there is a link between (and I did say if) between violence in computer games and videos and real violence then law and regulations are going to be placed to try and stop that, infact they aready are that is why we have age resrictions so young mind will hopefully reach adulthood with the basic understanding of whats right and wrong without killing anyone first, it may sound extreme but thats why they are there.

Its a difficult subject, maybe things do need to change a little you wouldnt expect to find snuff simulation films that show one killing after another with various different weapons in Blockbuster, Woolworths, WH Smiths or anywhere else because they would get banned, but if you look at Manhunt that is in essence what the game is. I dont think banning all gore and killing in games would be an answer because that is too extreme and your not going see it ever going to happen in the film industry so why should games be any different but maybe a line needs to be drawn as to how far a computer game can go.
Nothing to do with whether a game is going to make someone go out and kill someone but more to do with what is acceptable and what is too much. And even then how do you say what is too much?

These days you simple cant put something like this out in the market these days without expecting someone to blame you for the death or maddness of there child.
In this case it is clearly wrong to blame the computer game because that kid was mugging the other kid for drugs money and no clear link can say the game gave him the idea and even if there was a clear link the actions that the kid took questions his sanity. He was also under age to buy the game in the first place, he shouldnt have had a copy.
But the media love a hate campain and before you know it its blowen out of all proportion.

But it still does raise a good question about whether or not there needs to be a change in the amount of voilence that is apparently acceptable in games.
And for the most part it deffinatly raises the question of whether or there should be even tighter restrictions in age releated sales. Maybe there needs to a 21 certificate? its an interesting idea. Trouble is you do that and you increase black market sales, illegal copies and you get all the people that rant it's turning into 'big brother' (not the damn tv series the 1984 George Orwell novel. ) One thing for sure I think Game and other stores should at least adopt the same policy as Sain's and WH Smiths when it come to the getting the parent to buy the game problem but they wont probably because of money.

(I rekon thats about £3 quids worth and that everyone will read the top line - the bottom line and think what is that twat witteling on about now )