Manhunt - To blame for a murder?

[RoGuE|SaBeR]

Just before we start - PLEASE keep this thread in good taste and spare a thought for those involved. Just want to discuss the issue at hand.

Ok so I'm sure we've all heard the news. 17 year old Warren Leblanc has pleaded guilty to brutaly murdering his 14 year old friend Stefan Pakeerah in apparent cold blood in a style supposedly similar to those portrayed in Manhunt.

Several stores have pulled the game from shelves including Game where I work. We got an e-mail in saying to pull the game and that we were not to sell it under any circumstances due to the media frenzy surrounding the title. Technicially I probably shouldn't even be posting here as we were told not to speak to the media but I'm part time and tbh couldn't care less.

Leblanc was supposedly "obsessed" with the game and his parents have stated that the game was probably his guide for the murder. He himself has pleaded guilty but I don't think he has commented on the game.

First and most obvious point. Why did a seventeen year old have the game? Yes fair point basically everyone from the ages of 10 and up has Vice City et al for their PS2 but that is a problem that should be addressed. Age ratings are basically pointless because I've lost count of the number of little kids who I say I won't sell a game to run and grab a parent to get it for them. I'll admit when I was younger I owned a lot of games that I shouldn't have had but I do now realise there is a reason to the system existing. (and I'm not just refering to this isolated incident)

I won't sell a game to someone who is underage but it IS illegal to supply an 18 rated title to a minor. This just isn't enforced at all. I have no problem with 14 or 15 + kids watching/playing them because they can handle the content but when the likes of a 7 year old gets Freddy Vs. Jason on DVD bought for them? Don't think so.

Was it right to pull the game? In this case I think it probably was. IMO that game shouldn't have even been made for several reasons. The context of the game itself, a snuff movie, is illegal so that in itself is questionable. I have played the game and it just didn't make me want to continue and finish it. The killings really were the most graphic violence I have ever seen in a videogame and the fact that you were rewarded for being more vicious and brutal doesn't really say much for it.

Don't get me wrong though. I'm not part of the PC brigade who want every single video game banned because they are a curse on the earth and are destroying the youth of today. I love computer games and have no problems with most violence in them but Manhunt is the one game that I feel has definately stepped over the line. The game itself wasn't that good I thought and it just sold on the merits of its violence.

The one thing that totally amazed me tonight in work was the dumbass chavs who came in and asked "here mate do you have that there game manhunt? saw it on the news and wanted to try it". First and foremost I was surprised they even watched the news but they just wanted to see how violent it was. A guy in work joked that they probably already have stabbed half a dozen people anyway...

What are your thoughts guys?

[TeePee]

'they probably already have stabbed half a dozen people anyway...'

A game wouldn't turn someone into a psychotic murderer. But a psychotic murderer might be attracted to playing a certain type of game.

The parents want to blame something, because of the guilt they feel themselves.

[Devilbod]

who I say I won't sell a game to run and grab a parent to get it for them

You might want to check this but I work in Sainsburys and was told that if a minor trys to buy something under age, to which you say no and then they pass it to there parents to buy infront of you, it is still an offence because you know they are buying it for the child and you can still refuse it.
Might just be Sainsburys policy but could be worth checking out.

Rockstar have been getting a lot of flack from some poeple in the industry for pushing things too far, they might end up finding themselves in trouble at this rate.
I do agree though Manhunt was ott, if the kills had been done in third person like the rest of the game it wouldnt have been so bad. They do tend to go for the hype sales.

Just had a look it is Sainsburys policy.

[Nacrisa]

What TeePee said.
And although he may be 17 and the title rated 18, I'm wondering how much of a difference another year would make anyway (and whether that's a point worth arguing).
The game sounds a bit dubious content-wise, from what I've heard. I wonder if there are limits to what these guys would put in a videogame...

[Starburn]

you've still got to have it in you to do something like that..

I've played GTA (and the original when it was first released, Im 18 now, so do the math - I can't remember when it was released), I also remember playing platoon on the C64 lol. That along with games such as Postal 2, Silent Hill (US version) etc. but I've never felt inclined to kill somebody, I don't even kill moths or spiders, feel too guilty

tbh, I think it's more to do with your childhood, what you are taught etc. of course you'll always get the people who are just evil no matter what, and perharps it could be said games could put ideas into these suggestive peoples minds. But then again, so could a movie like My Little Eye.......... or pretty much anything you see these days (watch the news, its enough usually).

As for pulling the game, well the stores have to be seen to do something otherwise we'll have another ban violent video games type thing going on, plus manhunt was a tad extreme - at least Postal 2 didn't encourage killing as such.
How about the ban jackass campaign, caused because a boy was obsessed with making home movies in a similar style with his friends, and ended up setting alight to himself, still I guess he didn't hurt anybody else.

There was something else I meant to say, but I've forgotton now.. I'll probably remember tommorow.

Newhos thats my 2p.

[Allen]

Personally I think it's a load of twoddle (nice word for me...). I've played violent games from early ages and I laugh at the content of Postal2, Vice City is one of my favourite games (running over pedestrians is easy to do), and let's not forget all the FPS I play where I kill hundreds of people with a multitude of weaponry. And there'st the real time strategy and RPG games where I build massive armies to conquer the world! (not just talking about me here, I don't try and conquer the world... every night)

But I know that it's just a game, I know that what I do in these games is illegal in RL and I know there's no way I could do them in RL. So I don't do them in RL. Why? Because my parents taught me the difference between right and wrong.

If anyone is to blame, it's the parents of the murderer and/or society today. All over you get 12-15 year olds fighting, smoking, drinking, shagging, having babies, not going to school, etc. If they are brought up with knowledge of what is right and what is wrong then teenage murderers shouldn't exist. There's too many now-a-days, it's scary. Bring back the cane!

I'm ranting now... I'm tired...

[Knoxville]

The content is indeed dubious but there was a similar style of game ages ago where you were on t.v and how you killed enemies increased ratings and gained you points, there was no such uproar then.

See my post in question time for further rantings.....

[miral78uk]

THE PARENTS BLAMING THE GAME IS JUST WRONG. ARE WE ALL OUT THERE KILLING PEOPLE FROM GAMES AND MOVIES??? I THINK NOT. I ACTUALLY GOT BORED OF MAN HUNT BECAUSE OF THE CUT SCENES. NOW HOWEVER I MIGHT KEEP THE GAME AS IT COULD BE BANNED (COLLECTORS ITEM). YOU WOULD HAVE TO BAN ALL 18+ MOVIES, SEX FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE BUT PROCREATION TO STOP SEXUAL DIESEASE BLAH BLAH BLAH HUNDREDS OF THEM. WAS THE MURDERER BROUGHT UP WELL WHAT TYPE OF AREA DID HE LIVE IN WHY WAS HE ALLOWED TO BUY THE GAME OR EVEN PLAY IT? SO MANY VARIABLE'S YOU CANT JUST BLAME GAMES.

FOR A SECOND I FORGOT WHAT THE WORD "GAME" MEANS........

MY THOUGHTS GO OUT TO THE MURDERED CHILD'S FAMILY AND FRIENDS.

BUT PLEASE MAY IT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE THE THE MURDERER WAS A BIT UNSTABLE ANYWAY?

THANKS FOR SUCH A GR8 FORUM HEXUS.

[dozer]

pathetic parents blaming everything but themselves. nice way to switch attention and put it on a video game. the parents are to blame, not the game.

[mgh0]

Firstly my deepest condolences go out to both families involved.

Secondly it seems everyone conveniently has forgotten that he killed the boy so he could rob him to pay his drug dealer.

He has been described as a loner, obesessive, paranoid, prone to violent outbursts etc.

Tbh, I have played the game and its incredibly boring, I don't think a game can make someone "normal" into a stone killer but I do think it might make someone who is psychotic a little more creative.

There was a case in the states a while back where a young man killed his best friend and a stranger as he believed he was in the matrix and had to "free their minds". He also was described as having mental problems.

The problems seem to come when you have a person who is unable to seperate fantasy and reality, these people are not made like this from watching a film or playing a game but already have the problem.

As for banning the game after its release its a stupid idea, banning it before the public had access would be much better, once its released is just asking for the people who are most likely to be influenced to actively go seek it out as said above.

If they want to ban the game as one person may have been influenced by it then surely flight sims should be banned as there is strong evidence that Al Quaeda members used these in the planning of the 9/11 attacks, then games that encourage violence, sex, manipulating the lives of people should be banned.

This ban would stop such evil titles as the battlefield series, the sims, Civilisation and a raft of other dangerous influences on our young and impressionable.

My opinion? Deal with the underlying issues such as his drug abuse and mental health and don't try and blame a video game for his actions.

[killgORE]

Manhunt - To blame for a murder?

No.

psycho boy was going to kill at some point. When he turned 18. started going to bars and somebody spilled his pint ? Crack, kerching. Dead drink spiller.

but i read a psychology easy on this a few years back. Obviously. even though doom was ancient even then. The 'scientists' <- debatable that its a science IMO -> chose doom. and something fluffy like Mario.

Tested two groups of pre-screened people and the people who played doom were more aggressive for like an hour after. But we are talking *slightly* like you overheard your name from somewhere and couldn't locate the source. +The people that played doom had adrenaline. the fuzzy game, whatever it was, probably bored the living crap out of the control group.

On another note. Mario is bloody violent. He goes around jumping on animals til he steals their lunch money. Its just the musak and graphics that make games sensational. I think this crap is only pulled with 3d games.

[PanzerKnight]

least they could ban a decent game, manhunt was poo sheesh

stuff like this stresses me out. Its like when they blame metal music for kids killing other kids etc. I fail to see how a game could make someone kill another person unless they're a crackpot already

[Grey M@a]

I started a similar thread in the question time forum yesterday, you can read my views here Video Games + Media.

[steve threlfall]

Originally Posted by Devilbod

You might want to check this but I work in Sainsburys and was told that if a minor trys to buy something under age, to which you say no and then they pass it to there parents to buy infront of you, it is still an offence because you know they are buying it for the child and you can still refuse it.
Might just be Sainsburys policy but could be worth checking out.

Sainsburys policy and also W H Smiths mate. It is illegal for the parent though not the shop as the the shop is not supplying a minor the parent is. I personally refuse to sell it to the parent aswell- its at my discretion totally and if they dont like it they can fluff off . Most responsilbe parents are totally understanding im just referring to the chav scum bags here.

Im not trying to be difficult but selling a game/video of a certain age rating carries a large fine and also leaves you with a criminal record.

[Starburn]

mgh0 : some very good points there, and well put

[SilentDeath]

Manhunt is OTT. Its a game aimed at chavs and console users. I definatly agree that:
" it just sold on the merits of its violence."

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.

Same with manhunt. Cba to play it and i definatly dont rate it highly. Take away the volence and you have a crap game.

If anyone is to blame, it's the parents of the murderer and/or society today. All over you get 12-15 year olds fighting, smoking, drinking, shagging, having babies, not going to school, etc. If they are brought up with knowledge of what is right and what is wrong then teenage murderers shouldn't exist. There's too many now-a-days, it's scary. Bring back the cane!

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.

Should they ignore that fact and pretend underage chavs dont exist?

Think about it again. They dont care about your individual experiance of the game, only the money they get from it. I really dont see how more voilence makes it more fun (well it does in bloodrayne but this is a different sort of game) so why bother?
Acctually the way I found out about manhunt was form a friend. All he said is that new game, wont be released in UK becuase of voilence so download it (I didnt).., and has the most voilence he has ever seen.

Also I agree with mgh0 compleatly on what he said. to sum up my post - Im just saying game developers should be aware that not every one is perfect, and so should push the extremes of something so pointless like voilence in an effort to make a lot of money from a very crap game.


Also there are lots of different forms of violence in games.
Carmegeddon for example (such a great game ) you drive really fast and splat goes the ped little bit of blood on the pavement and dismenbered (sp?) limbs.. but thats it..

FPS games, usually violence is from a distance (like shooting some one with a gun).
Manhunt you sneak up close behind them, stab them in the neck with a crude weapon (peice of glass for example) - and it shows it in plenty of detail too. Not only is it showing violence but also almost realistically how to do it, grab a piece of glass and you have an effective weapon.... most chavs wouldnt be that cleaver - I wonder how many unsucsessfull murder attemps could have happened as a result of fked up people exposed to too much violence... you dont hear much about unsucsessfull ones on the news...

Hmm well I want to kill myself... wonder if people would say that is a result off too much gaming.... (no, defniatly not..) something to think about anyway...