Rock Climber I understand your point but if no company made Ultra violent game, and no Ultra Violent was available you will not need it, why you need that kind of games? I dont say that they I dont play them as well but I dont think in our sociaty we absolutly need those games. Do it mean that we are some sick people to wanted to open the chest of a baby or anything you could thing. Are we now at this point of our intellectual advancement? Ultra-Violent game are here since only 3 or 4 years. Before that game was SOOO great and I could not remember such a violence, and I dont remember needing that. OF course I bough Doom 2 and I will buy Doom 3 because they are available and they are fun but if they were not available I would have not need them you understand my point? All that those game can do is raise (even tinny it could be) in our self the need to more gore, You say by your self.

"But when you start telling me, a 32 year old Adult, that I cannot view these things, then you are going to get a fight from me"

I will never say to you that you cannot do this or that never, but just to make you know or see that there is no need of that kind of game in our world. By the way im 30 yo.

I dont want to ban Ultra Violence, I just say that I dont need them, and I cannot see why you absolutely need them to? And what is the next thing? And what is limit?
I see man having sex with a 17 yo girl and jailed. But it is okay to pie on a girl or killing children in a games? (Postal 2). I know its a games but learning stuff when you are young is important to become what you will be in the future. And youth today play a lots games and they learn some stuff about them.

Anyway I will stop here because I know someone here will tell me to STFU and to go kiss my ass or worst. But thats okay because this is where we are now in our sociaty to shit on other!

Nords out - Peace

This comment was edited on Jul 31, 12:08.

"The fact that the overwhelming majority of adolescents who play violent video games don't commit murder doesn't mean that some or even a few aren't motivated by these violent games to do so. If you create a simulation for murder where you reward the participant when he kills and mames, don't be surprised when an impressionable participant continues the simulation in the real world."

Any kid who is driven to the point of violence acts by playing a violent video game is already mentally unstable and screwed-up in the head to being with. I've haven't seen one incident or any ioda of proof that a rather normal child will commit an act of violence or become a more violent person because he/she played violent video games.
So it's not the game's fault that the kid commited an act of violence, it's the fault of him being mentally unstable and screwed-up to being with. Anyways, even if the game wasn't there for the kid to play, he could have been triggered off by some cop show he saw on T.V, something he read in a book, or something he saw or heard about in real life.

This comment was edited on Jul 30, 19:42.

If DOOM caused the Columbine massacre, Isn't anyone worried about DOOM 3 causing the Apocolypse? By the logic tossed around lately it seems like a perfectly sane conclusion.
Hopefully the apocolypse won't be thwarted by too many poor angst filled teens with windows98

This comment was edited on Jul 30, 14:39.

NORDS,

The answer to your question is YES! I NEED ULTRA VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES. Furthermore, I should be allowed to play them if I god damn want. I don't want anyone telling me that I am not allowed to play Manhunt, or watch ultra violent movies, or read ultra violent books, or listen to ultra violent music.

There needs to be better laws in place for the purchase of these games, so that kids cannot get them. I have NO PROBLEM with that. Control them like alcohol if you want. But when you start telling me, a 32 year old Adult, that I cannot view these things, then you are going to get a fight from me.

The problem with the question you ask NORDS, is that if you start banning depictions of "ultra violence" (the definition of which is a matter of personal opinion), then you open the door up for the next thing. While you may agree with banning games like Manhunt, wait until the shit roles downhill and effects something YOU enjoy. If you allow this type of censorship, then it's only a matter of time.

REGULATE - DO NOT CENSOR

"The rules need to be changed"

OF course it has to change MAKE LESS VIOLENT GAMES!! The gaming industry can make AWSOME game without that kind of ultra violence!! Do we really need that?? Really? Games like Splinter Cell / Battlefield offer some violence but are so well done and do not need to be ultra violent with lots of gore. Personnally I think it should be the maximum of violence see in games.

Do we really need Ultra-Violence game like Manhunt?

I dont think so.

This confused me. How can you hold anyone responsible except the manufacturer for making a game deemed inappropriate when like you stated he could have gotten it anywhere.

Just because the game can be ACQUIRED and/or PLAYED anywhere does not mean that it just dropped out of the sky. My point is that where the boy in this case acquired or played the game is really irrelevant to the culpability of the game's publisher for the game's content, sales, and marketing to minors.

To me that indicates that some form of censorship is required on the development of games.

I would prefer strict regulation of the sales and marketing of games to minors rather than censorship of game content.

I would rather see retailers held responsible for selling to people not of age.

That is just one component in the solution.

You can use an infinite number of produced art or media for inspiration or imitation to emulate violence.

Actually video games are unlike other media in this regard because they are so immersive and interactive. The game player gets to act out the experience. The U.S. military uses computer simulations like these to train soldiers to kill in combat. In video games like Manhunt, the player is taught to murder and rewarded for it. Putting an impressionable child through this "training" can have disasterous consequences as society is starting to see.

The perpetrator's parents in this case may be to blame for allowing their child to play this game, but laying blame on the parents isn't going to solve the greater problem and prevent it from happening again. The video games industry, retailers, and government must step up to protect the public when parents don't.

This comment was edited on Jul 30, 10:38.

1 UK "newspaper" , the daily mail is (again) calling for this filth to be banned.

I live a quiet life with my wife and dog. We're both in our mid thirties now and have both played "violent" computer games since we were about 12-13yrs old.

In my 36 years on this planet I've lost:

2 friends to motorbikes (and nearly lost 1 Father)
1 much loved friend to cigarettes
1 friend to football (Soccer, crushed to death in a "fan" riot).
Gained countless many friends from gaming and never lost one friend to a game yet.

First Ban that stuff then lets talk tbh....

or are "the rules" not this simple:
- Murder = Bad
- Don't Murder

Period...? There is NO excuse for cold-blooded murder. If you do it, you are broken.

This simple fact should stand so starkly outside of any possible external influence (video game or otherwise), that it's frankly just silly.

I agree with the no accountability sentiment. I'm sick of this trend.

You ever try to buy a game at Target or Walmart?
I am sure that they do it other places now also.
You have to show your id when you buy a game, which feels a little funny when you are in your late 20s.

:-)

Mad people with a car will use the car to kill other people.
Mad people with a knife will use the knife to kill other people.
Mad people with a gun will use the gun to kill other people.

Mad, drug consuming people with a knife or a gun or a car AND a computer game suddenly become sane again and all blame is on that bad, bad, satanistic game.
Right on idiot bureaucrats, and even more retarded, idiot parents. Never blame yourself, always blame someone/something else............

Roger, Bravo Delta, this is Sitting Duck. I have Bogie Queen in my sights, and I'm, uh, going to shoot bullets at it now.
- Unknown Soldier

"If I may digress, though, I think that violence in videogames is far less important a problem in our (or British, in this case) society than videogames in general contributing to child-obesity. I would say that violence in videogames is right down there in terms of importance with massively-multiplayer games and the dissolution of more than a few marriages in this country."

On the topic of child-obesity i'd like to add that i find it funny that people don't seem to give a shit if some 250 pound 12 year old kid is guzzling down 4 liters of pop a day and eating a gigantic bag of Doritero's with a super big chocolate bar and he's able to easily get this stuff at the corner store BUT if the kid bought some violent video game and went home and played it they start getting all pissy and ask the government for regulation.
At least there is some clear-cut empyrical evidence that junk food is bad for kids with proof it causes diabetes, obesity and hyperactivity, the same of which can't be said for violent games and violent behavior in children.
This comment was edited on Jul 29, 22:32.

Few things here:

1. I'm sure this can be traced back to some underdeveloped social behavior that this child lacked throught most of his upbringing. Many people play a very large amount of violent and adult themeed games and are able control their social behaviors. So there had to be something lacking in this 17yos mind.

2. Maybe 'Manhunt' was the straw that broke the camel's back so to speak, but it certainly isn't a contributing factor to the crime, maybe to this childs poor morality.

3. There will always be situations like this for the major reason that most parents don't raise their children past the age of 11 or 12. Children raise themselves in today's society. I was a latch key child, fortunately I had a very strong ethical and moral base from which to derive that factors that influence my choices in life, obviously something this young adult didn't have.

4. If hes 17 then he should have known better, try him as an adult and then the issue of video games goes away(not sure if they can in the UK).

Someone said : " Games are available almost anywhere. The boy could have played it at a friend's house or a store. Parents usually don't buy their children cigarettes, alcohol, or illegal drugs either, but that doesn't stop their children from getting their hands on them.

Without appropriate laws, the only way to discourage video game companies from marketing and selling inappropriate products to minors is to hold them accountable for the consequences.

This confused me. How can you hold anyone responsible except the manufacturer for making a game deemed inappropriate when like you stated he could have gotten it anywhere. To me that indicates that some form of censorship is required on the development of games.

I would rather see retailers held responsible for selling to people not of age. 'Well he got it from his friend' then hold his friend accountable or his friends parents if they bought it for a minor.

The real person responsible here is the parents first, for not instilling good values and morals that should have prevented this from going this far. In last place would be whoever allowed this child to play the game. No where could I see someone making an objectional product regardless who they market it to as long as age verification is put in effect at the retail level as at fault. You can use an infinite number of produced art or media for inspiration or imitation to emulate violence. The act comes from your action from your thought.

Who knows ... I could be wrong.

Hmm. I also wish we could drag time back to when there were no video games, say in 1916 or 1800. More peaceful times when we didn't have to worry about the disgrace that is, um, are, video games. If only we could relive those happy days when we had no more to worry about than rape by Russian Cossacks or Hungarian Hussars.

I distinctly remember the onslaught created when many of us were struck down by the popular board game Dysentry Squares.

Surely everyone can realise that the boardgame makers should be dragged behind SWIFT horses, until DEAD. A change of horses will be available.

Riley,

I take it you didn't read past the line about the money. The next sentence I said I am sure the parents would prefer the child to the money. Read the whole post next time.

We can agree to disagree on the rest of it. I think if you are going to sue someone for contributing to this death, then you need to go all the way down the line, including the parents. Its bullshit that they get to pick and choose who was a contributor. The fact is, it's complete speculation in the first place. How the hell can they actually PROVE the game contributed to his actions?

Like I said, it all comes down to the dog and pony show in the courtroom. Whoever spends the most money on lawyers usually wins. One side or the other may get a "policy building" judge as well. Seems to be the trend these days.

The Jury? Most people are too stupid to reason their way out of a wet paper bag, let alone decide whether or not a video game is (partially) to blame for this.

Rock Climber wrote:

If I go drive like an asshole and push someone off the road, do I get to blame Project Gotham Racing?

You can blame whomever you want just as your victims can. The question for the jury is, did your playing the game contribute to your behavior? The fact is that for some individuals, the answer to that question is yes, and those who contributed to the behavior are liable.

Manhunt has followed the rules. They have the parent advisory crap on their packaging, and I bet the rating pops up when you put the game in to. The makers of Manhunt did not hand this kid a free copy of the game.

The rules need to be changed. Did the publisher of Manhunt advertise and promote the product to young impressionable adolescents by advertising it in media which that target audience predominately reads and watches? If so (and I believe it is so), then the publisher is responsible for encouraging minors to buy the game and not doing enough to prevent and discourage it.

The tobacco companies didn't get serious about selling their products to minors until laws and court decisions forced them to do so. It is time for the video game industry to step up and do the same lest they be forced to do it.

When I see cases like this, I see parents trying to reassign guilt

It's a question of contributory negligence. It's not that the video game publishers are totally responsible, but it's also not true that they bear no responsibility whatsoever.

and hopefully make a bunch of money along the way

You simply have no rational perspective as evident by this comment. Any parent whoever lost his own child would gladly trade "a bunch of money" to have that child back.

For those who say it is totally the fault of the parent, it is incredibly naive to think that parents can shield their children from the evils of society especially when their children are 17 as the perpetrator is in this case. I don't know the details of this case so I don't know if this teen's parents bought Manhunt for their son or not. But, it really doesn't matter. Games are available almost anywhere. The boy could have played it at a friend's house or a store. Parents usually don't buy their children cigarettes, alcohol, or illegal drugs either, but that doesn't stop their children from getting their hands on them.

Without appropriate laws, the only way to discourage video game companies from marketing and selling inappropriate products to minors is to hold them accountable for the consequences.


This comment was edited on Jul 29, 17:25.

I still contend that if the game didn't have the "over the top violence" in the form of the eeeeevil death scenes, it would have gotten much lower reviews.

Perhaps. I was personally disappointed with the violence in the game. I was expecting it to be much more gruesome, yet it still retains the comical feeling from the GTA games (not surprising, since it uses the same engine). But I'm depraved, so maybe it's just me.

Returning to the topic at hand, I can see Manhunt being inspiration for someone who is already unstable. Then again, I can see a lot of things as inspiration for a sociopath. Really, if fictional violence was the cause of homicidal urges, there would be a lot more murder in Japan. Anime tends to be pretty violent and then you have film directors like Takeshi Miike who make films that would likely be banned from most American theaters. This problem with violence is a problem of society, not of entertainment media.
This comment was edited on Jul 29, 16:38.

Considering that 10 minutes doesn't even get you past the training level, I'd say that perhaps you should play the game more before judging it so harshly.

Okay, maybe it was longer than 10 minutes. I made it to the second level i think. I guess the gameplay worked for some, but for me, I'd rather play hitman or Splinter Cell if i was going for sneaking around in the dark.

Difference of opinion I suppose. I still contend that if the game didn't have the "over the top violence" in the form of the eeeeevil death scenes, it would have gotten much lower reviews.

Now I must go and get some chick pregnant so I can be a bad father. Then I can blame it on this thread and not take responsibility for my bad parenting.


Several months ago I was hanging out with a friend of mine in an electronic store and watched as some parents bought their small child (5 or 6 years old) a copy of GTA: Vice City. Now there is bad parenting. Asshats.

Violent games are to blame for violent behavior. And watching porn too much makes people have sex.

If only that were true...

For some reason, nobody can ever blame a parent for parental negligence in the United States. It's *always* someone else's fault. Probably for the same reason fat people blame fast food restaurants for making them fat.

--Infantryman
Proud to be part of the ACASM.

"Is it so hard to teach a child not to shoot people?"