Adventure Game Studio

I read today that Manhunt 2 will not be available to buy in the UK, banned from being sold here because of its violent nature and the case some time ago in which a kid was apparently inspired by the game to murder another boy. Personally, I think this is brilliant. I'm sick of sadistic games that teach people nothing other than how to be sadistic. A form of escapism it may be, but, when it comes to games like Manhunt, I would question anyone that gets a real "kick" out of playing it. Violence in my mind is not necessarily bad. It's when the realism of simulated violence reaches unprecedented levels. As graphics & gameplay constantly improve, and companies strive to make the games we play mimic what we see and do in real life, I have to ask - is there a need for promoting violence? We all know 18 rated films & games easily get into the hands of young people so the more violent & realistic the games become the more chance there is for younger people to be influenced by that kind of material.

What do you think?

I'll bet some of you would like to argue that there is no "proof" that these kind of games can affect someone to copycat them, but that's not really the debate I'm looking for here. I want to know essentially who else supports the banning of violent games, or people who beleive there should be more control over what game studios produce.

I can only say one thing: I'm 13 I've played Postal 2. I didn't gone mad. And Why??
Coz I'M NOT TAKIN IT SERIOUS(well actually Postal 2 was meant to be the parody of sadistic FPSs and America. I liked it and I have to  say that anybody who thinks Postal 2 is a mad idotic an most sadistic is taking that game too serious they think the games aim is to kill but the games aim is to show that how aggressive the people are e. g. even the priests have gun.Well I can't say anything bout Manhunt and I don't even wanna try it but I had to mention Postal because they often compare it with Manhunt... And they are all wrong) 

Ok this is a tough one.
I do not support outright banning of games although in the case of Manhunt 2 it probably was a good decision. If it was alright to publish a "game" in which the only aim is to sadistically kill and maim people it would have to be also alright to publish something along the line of stalking little girls and how to torture them in your cellar.

It is smut like Manhunt which always gives politicians and other people of influence the ammunition to trash video games and to call for greater censorship. I sincerely hope that this backfires and that for once bad publicity goes along with falling revenues.

I don't support the banning of violent games, I think is stupid just to think of it.
The games must be rated M 18+, and that's it, just as it happens with movies, and any other material children shouldn't watch, play, or buy. I think is that simple.
You may say, children still get to them, but the problem there, is not the existence of violent videogames. Banning them would be the lazy way to solve it, and completely unfair for those who make GOOD games, with violence.

Quotethe case some time ago in which a kid was apparently inspired by the game to murder another boy

Yes, the case in which the murdered boy was the one who owned the game.

As has been said elsewhere: aside from interactivity, I fail to see how Manhunt could be much worse than Hostel, and that wasn't banned.

I'm personally not for banning any kind of entertainment, simply due to the possibility of a slippery slope; but that can only work if ratings are enforced, which they currently mostly aren't. And of course that depends mostly on the parents, and will hopefully change as gamers grow up and people become more comfortable with the medium and recognize it's not just "for kids" (but then, animation/comics still bear that stigma after how many decades of trying to escape it, so it's possible that games will forever be marginalized; but that seems unlikely given the current growth of the industry).

I have no time for games that purposely court controversy, and in my opinion Manhunt 2 got exactly what it deserved.

Rockstar Games have lost all artistic credibility with what is essentially an exercise in excess. They can drape whatever ill-conceived, badly written tripe that passes for a story at their studio, around this rubbish and still be a long way from justifying the levels of pointless brutality they have gone to.

They knew full well that, regardless of its content, Manhunt 2 would be a controversy magnet, and they still went out of their way to make it as gruesome and offensive as possible.

The funny thing is, I've played the first Manhunt and I actually thought it was a decent game that, in my opinion, ended up getting shafted by an hysterical media eager for a scapegoat.

I don't believe that Manhunt 2 could influence anybody, who wasn't in someway already mentally damaged, to commit copycat acts, and its banning is a setback for the video game medium as a whole and lends credence to people such as Keith Vaz and Jack Thompson.

But I don't blame the BBFC, nor Sony and Nintendo for refusing to publish it. The blame fully lies at the feet of Rockstar Games and their lack of common sense, not in making a game that depicts violence of this magnitude, but for releasing it within a climate they knew full well would object.

Frankly, I'm surprised Nintendo would have allowed a Wii version in the first place (mimed throat slashings included). It goes to show that this kind of toss is what Nintendo thinks the Wii needs to acquire a "mature" image. I sincerely hope they rethink any further attempts.

Rockstar has now become an upscale version of Running With Scissors, the previous holders of my personal Gobshite Game Studio award.

The torch has been passed.

I'd reluctantly support the banning of a game/movie/record if it is shown that it'd cause some seriously big problems. That's not shown in this case.

Until these awful, awful games are causing a significant, demonstrable negative effect in society it seems backward to consider censoring them. Yes, it's only entertainment, and it isn't like censorship of important ideas, but even entertainment media censorship on the grounds of "oh, I don't like the look of that" is quite pathetic, in my opinion. I had hoped we'd come some way since blaming D&D, heavy metal, horror movies, and all manner of other things for creating killers (often with more reason than for Manhunt), but sadly not, it seems.

Any link between games and increased violence is so tenuous that despite all the studies there's nothing conclusive. All you hear is the anti violent game crowd repeating nonsense like the case of the manhunt killer m0ds mentioned, doesn't matter to them that the police investigating the case didn't believe that was much to do with it, as long as the newspapers did.

At least this time it's only Manhunt, I don't suppose gamers will be that up in arms about it until they ban something we might have wanted to buy.

I find the situation in the US more hilarious.  It's been rated Adults Only, which means Nintendo/Sony refuse to publish, and many large retailers will refuse to stock.  So whilst it's not been banned, the effective business decisions of the parties involved mean that it will hardly be sold.

Anyway, I reckon Rockstar will already have a fully down-tuned version of the game for resubmission to both the ESRB and the BBFC to get it rated to 18 here or M in the US.  It's probably all a big "hah-hah-let's generate controversy" circus anyway.

Quote from: Becky on Fri 22/06/2007 22:24:18
Anyway, I reckon Rockstar will already have a fully down-tuned version of the game for resubmission to both the ESRB and the BBFC to get it rated to 18 here or M in the US.  It's probably all a big "hah-hah-let's generate controversy" circus anyway.

If that is the case, they may be even more stupid than I previously feared.

I agree that violent video games should be scoffed at.    Manhunt didnt even have a story save for "you're on TV and you have to kill people!!!!!'   


But I think Limping Fish does a poor job of donning the Frank Zappa icon.   Frankly, I'm ashamed.   I'm against censorship because once you place the line of what's excessive, it doesn't stay there.    The example only serves to confuse and frustrate, when it really does come down to the child's parents enforcing their own rules.

Ehh, it's all BS. I had to get my mum to buy me Carmageddon when I was still 15, since I wanted the rated 18 version (which had non-zombies, the 16 version was only green-blooded zombie bastards). And of course my mum got me the game, because she also rented Hellraiser for me for the first time when I was 8.

I'm a big 80's horror fan now and enjoy gory games. I giggle at bloody scenes and generally enjoy gore on a multitude of levels.

So when I hear all this "OMG VIOLENT GAMES MAKE KIDS KILL" bullshit, I think to myself "then why didn't that happen to me?". Because I'm not fucked up in the head, I guess, and I just enjoy it and see it for what it is - entertainment, however baseless and content-less it may be.

But those who are fucked up in their heads, the ones that have a predisposition to violence, to not talking about what's bothering them, causing them to explode with frustration at a certain time, will of course gravitate towards violent games.

But doesn't that mean the games are a symptom rather than the cause? I think so.

Because if you don't get any violent games, you'll just play Mario Kart swearing like a trucker. The frustration will find an outlet anyway.

A week's worth of daily news bulletins are generally more horrible than any game or movie.

I think Rockstar are deliberately trying to be controversial, which makes this an unfair example. However, if a good game, that people had put a lot of effort into was banned I would be outraged. Games, after all, are art. I think that freedom when it comes to art is important, people don't have to like it, but it would be nice if they were tolerant of it.

Also, games like this, released console on only, clearly appealing to young people who want to get hold of them illegally to play are a bad representation of gaming, and it angers me. Stories like this cause the public to frown upon games and dismiss them as violent rubbish that 12 year old kids play on Playstations. This forum is clear proof that games are more than that, they are a wide, interesting and creative media.

There is no conclusive proof that games, nor films, nor TV affect people directly.

These news stories are just the new generation of the Mary Whitehouse brigade, hopefully like that rubbish, it will pass.

I recall reading, in my history book (the one we used at school), about a game where you played as a Nazi and had to torture a Jew. The more he suffered, the more points you got.

That's essentially what Manhunt is, isn't it? Though without the Nazi concept. Now, I also disagree with censoring, but there are limits. Is there anyone who can honestly tell me they think the Nazi game should be banned and Manhunt 2 shouldn't?

Banning games is utterly (and totally) pointless.

[sarcasm]
Banning it in the UK will definitely stop all of the people there from ever playing it.
[/sarcasm]

I'd wager that the makers of the game are lovin' the fact that it's being banned.  You can't buy that kind of publicity.  In this day and age the only thing that banning the game is going to do is make people want it more.

Don't get me wrong ... I understand the sentiment behind the move, but banning a violent video game is like telling teenagers they can't have alcohol until they're 21.  We see how well that works.

When will people learn?

Child pornography is also banned, even criminal and it does not stop some people to get it. Does that mean we should legalize it? What does Rockstar stop to publish "Girlhunt" next? No child would be hurt in the making or playing of such a "game" and according to the news there is a demand out there. With the controversy and publicity it would probably even be a commercial success. Or something for the Anti-semites (sp?) "Auschwitz-Manager" or for the Anti-Americans "Bomberman NYCity"

Do we really want to defend the indefensible in the name of freedom of speech?
Somewhere a society needs to draw a line and for me Manhunt 2 crossed that line.

There's a big difference between violent video games and child pornography.

However I don't disagree with "drawing a line" necessarily ... it's just a pointless battle to fight.  As long as there is a demand for something, somebody somewhere will supply it.  40 years ago bathrooms on television shows had no toilets, now-a-days Jack Bauer is cuttin' people's heads off in prime-time.  I'm not saying it's progress, or even that I agree with it, but it is what it is.

Make violent video games illegal?  Does anybody REALLY believe making it illegal will stop it?

It worked really well with mp3 downloads ;)

Show me the SERIOUS developer that would make girlhunt. I think, if a sick enough person could actually find a team of equally sick people large enough to make girlhunt, they should go for it. If for no other reason than to prove a point. After that game came out, we would hear the same cookie-cutter crap from everyone who always has an objection to art (and I'm aware I'm nearly breaking this word by stretching it here) they don't like. "Oh, a girl was kidnapped and tortured....that NEVER happened before Girlhunt".

Maybe that's extreme, and I pray no one EVER goes to that place when making a game, but it's silly. I WANT to play a game that's been banned. I WANT to know why. There was murder before there were games. If a game makes a crazy, internally murderous person kill, then it WAS going to happen anyway.

This is a real question here...isn't there some history of people killing because they saw a n image or even a mixture of colors that set them off? I can't remember if I made that up. :P

I am completely against any kind of censorship (not including, of course child pornography, snuff, stuff like that), so I am by default against the banning of Manhunt 2, or any other game.

Now, about the reality level that m0ds mentioned: It's true that games are getting more and more realistic in the sound, graphics and overall atmosphere, and that is definitely changing the effect the games have on you. However, my point is: No matter how realistic the game is, there is absolutely no chance it will cause you to kill someone or do something you wouldn't have done otherwise. Some time from now, the games will be dangerously close to real-life situations, with all those force-feedback things, 3D displays, photorealistic graphics etc., but the more realistic a game is, the more difficult it will be for a (normal) human to do a violent act in it.

My example: When I play a FPS, I am perfectly comfortable with, say, Doom 3, where I kill zombies, monsters from Hell etc., than FarCry, where I have to deal with real people. In the latter game I can't even bring myself to use a sniper, and avoid shooting people before they attack me (you can probably guess that I don't progress very fast in that game  ;D ).

So, anyway, I have to go to eat, and I end this post. See you!

Simulations may continue to get more realistice but they will never get more "realer".

I remember reading a quote somewhere that went something like, "Freedom of speech means nothing until it protects the speech that is offensive."

I think that sort of applies to this.  Who needs the protection of freedom of speech when all you're doing is saying nice and lovely things that everybody agrees with?  What would be the point?  Free speech is for the offensive and ugly things.  Don't ban violent video games, regardless of the content.  As evenwolf wisely put it, simulations aren't ever going to become "realer."

I for one do not believe that video games/music/movies create twisted, messed up kids.  I think you're really simplifying the human mind if you think that something like a video game can make you capable of something as complex as murder, rape, or whatever it is they're currently claiming the entertainment industry is doing to our kids.

My point was not that violent games create twisted kids or adults, because I just don't think it is the case. My point is that a society has to have standards and these standards should be mandatory for everybody.

Harvester said no censorship excluding for child pornography and snuff. That sounds reasonable to me, but I would include Manhunt 2 in the snuff category. What else is it?

If I understand mouthuvmine and raggit correctly they say "freedom of expression" above everything. I can live with that rationale but I am afraid that includes child porn and whatever sick things you can imagine. This is not the case at the moment so the argument against banning snuff games does not hold.

And Darth yes I think banning works. Not on the demand side but on the side of the supplier. If you can't sell your game legally why produce it in the first place? On another note what is the difference in killing and mutilating people and raping children in a game? Both are crimes in real life and both are completely harmless in a game. What they have in common is that both are sick and disgusting, that is why both should be treated equally.

Cobra, child pornography isn't the same issue as a violent video game.

Child pornography is illegal because it involves abducting, exploiting and abusing young children who have not consented to do any of what they're doing. 

The only victims in a violent video game are finely textured polygonal models being controlled by an AI.

How are these two things even comparable? 

Now let's take for instance, a snuff film.  Why should a snuff film be banned while movies like Hostel are hitting theaters?  Because Eli Roth just threw a bunch of latex and fake blood on the actors and told them to scream.  Nobody was hurt to produce the film.

Quote from: Raggit on Sat 23/06/2007 19:23:33
Child pornography is illegal because it involves abducting, exploiting and abusing young children who have not consented to do any of what they're doing. 

The only victims in a violent video game are finely textured polygonal models being controlled by an AI.

By your own definition here, a game where you'd play a child abuser and had to make money by selling the videos you make of the abuse would be okay, because the only victims would be finely textured polygonal models being controlled by an AI.

Your reasoning seems faulty.

I'm going to have to side with m0ds and Fish here since most people seem to think the sort of shit like Postal 1/2 and manhunt 2 is perfectly okay, but with a proviso:

I'm more concerned about why the game was made in the first place.  I mean, seriously, a game where your sole objective is to murder people in grisly, realistic and graphic depictions of sadism.  Is that where our collective societies are heading, toward a world where anything goes as long as it feels good?  Sensible human beings have to collectively draw lines in the sand somewhere to prevent things from getting out of hand, and while banning a single game won't really do that I would be more interested in targeting the developers who actually thought it was a good fucking idea.

cobra: Snuff games? You mean games in which fictional polygonal characters die? Like most games?
Calling Manhunt a "snuff game" is like calling any crap horror movie a "snuff movie". Nobody died to make Manhunt, nobody dies when you play it, it has never been demonstrated that playing the game makes you significantly more likely to harm someone.

A snuff movie is a movie of someone being killed for entertainment purposes... the reasons such a thing would be illegal are obvious, and they're not our vague ideas of what is up to "standards".
Similarly we don't simply abhor child porn because of "standards", it's banned because it's part of an industry that exploits and abuses children, and because having child pornography is seen as a good indicator that you're a danger to children. Simulated child porn, like Voh mentioned, is illegal many places, clearly the first reason doesn't apply to that, but it seems to be based on the second.

Owning Manhunt is a terrible indicator of if you'll commit murder, or if you think it's fun to hurt people. It's a PS2 game with some OTT 3d gore animations. It's predominantly an average quality sneaking game. I enjoyed the first game for about an hour, but then got tired of the gameplay - I'm not a sadistic killer, and I didn't feel like I was becoming one in the game. It might become worrying if the game seemed realistic, and encouraged me to really take part in "sadism" but it doesn't. Manhunt is obviously not a game for people that want a torture simulator, the options are too limited. They've even taken out the snuff movie theme in the second game, if for some reason that was the most offensive part.

As for it being banned, Rockstar definitely did not want that... sure it might make it seem cooler among some, but for overall sales it'll be a disaster - unless they can get a rerated version out as soon as possible.

ProgZ:
"Sensible human beings have to collectively draw lines in the sand somewhere to prevent things from getting out of hand" Absolutely. I'd hope most people would draw them at the point things are actually causing trouble for other people though, and not when they don't like the look of someone else's choice of entertainment. Coming from a horror movie fan, this seems a strange comment. Manhunt is way tamer than you guys are making out...

What about the people that want to play these games? Maybe by your OPINION, they're sick. But, using a different arguement, anyone could make any game out to be pointless "shit". But people do want to play these games. There a lot of people who get aggression OUT of them by acting out moral no-nos on a tv screen. Sure, the game lacks story. Lacks even an argueable point, but a lot of relatively normal people want to play it.

To me it looks like double standards to claim you are not a danger to anyone because you play an excessively violent game (I admit I haven't played manhunt and just seen some screenshots, because I never ever would buy such crap) but you are a danger to children if you had a child porn game if there aren't even any around (I don't know, but I certainly hope so). And off course I was talking about virtual child porn the whole time. I just don't see a difference between cutting a polygonal characters head off and raping a polygonal child. Both are revolting and in both cases there is no victim.

If you read my original post through, you will see that I treat the banning of Manhunt 2 as a terribly damaging thing for a medium that is still in it's infancy, and lightyears away from obtaining the same artistic merit, to those outside the scene, that literature/cinema/music enjoy.

As I also said, I don't blame the BBFC for taking this stance as, from a political/social standpoint, what were they supposed to do? How can we work towards not needing government intervention in entertainment mediums when a studio such as Rockstar openly baits those who would seek to obtain just the opposite.

The banning of Manhunt 2 accomplishes nothing, save to damage the image of gaming as a whole, an image already represented by a gaming media which currently resembles a dribbling idiot who gets it's jollies tearing the wings off of butterflies. "Use the wiimote to slice their throats! Blood now spatters realistically over your knife-weilding hand! BLOOD! CHUNKS OF RAGGED FLESH!!! I THINK I JUST CAME IN MY PANTS!!!"

Rockstar never saw beyond the "there's no such thing as bad publicity" angle, never once thinking of the hysteria they wrongly found themselves at the center of a few years back. Are they completely fucked in the head? What the hell did they think would happen?!

This situation isn't about freedom of speech, though Rockstar will cry otherwise. This is about cynical ways to play the consumer. There is nothing mature about Manhunt 2, and Rockstar knows that the bulk of its profits come from 15-year old boys, who may also resemble dribbling idiots who get their jollies tearing the wings off butterflies.

The "Freedom of Speech has no line to cross!" argument is as naive as it is redundant, as society will always draw a line regarding what we find "acceptable" and what we don't. We do it ourselves everyday.

I am totally against the banning of any creative work that a panel of non-elected individuals
have decided is "wrong". But I also applaud how the BBFC constently updates and re-evaluates what is does and what it doesn't find "unacceptable". I think that, however against censorship I may be, that the only way foward is to work with something like the BBFC and explore just what position society should or should not play in policing what we see/play/read/or listen too.

I'd like to see a society where the gaming industry doesn't have to submerge itself in the gutter to turn a profit. I'd like to see a society where claims of "Grand Theft Auto made me do it!" would be greeted with laughter and dismissed on educated grounds.

Until we reach that point, we need to work to establish games as a serious form of artistic expression (if such a thing is possible), instead of, as Rockstar have done, find the quickest route to profit. And the quickest way to deny them that profit is to deny them an outlet to sell their product.

For the record, from wiki:

"Games in the UK only usually receive a ban when they contain extreme and gratituous violence. Sex and nudity are not the main concern. Games are not 'banned' but are refused classification by the BBFC. It is illegal to sell a game that has not been classified by the BBFC in the UK."

    * Carmageddon
    * Manhunt 2

That's a grand total of two titles that the BBFC saw that no workaround existed (beyond extensive editing). Two deciding factors for both games were, I'm sure, the foaming-mouthed media circus that was purposely instigated by the games publisher or developer. Carmageddon was later passed, after edits, eventually appearing on multiple formats, including the family-friendly N64 and Gameboy.

Two games.

I can live with that.

Quote from: voh on Sat 23/06/2007 19:26:58

Quote from: Raggit on Sat 23/06/2007 19:23:33
Child pornography is illegal because it involves abducting, exploiting and abusing young children who have not consented to do any of what they're doing. 

The only victims in a violent video game are finely textured polygonal models being controlled by an AI.

By your own definition here, a game where you'd play a child abuser and had to make money by selling the videos you make of the abuse would be okay, because the only victims would be finely textured polygonal models being controlled by an AI.

Your reasoning seems faulty.

Well, personally, I wouldn't think that game would be "okay," I think it would be disgusting and horrible.  However, my opinion has no effect over whether or not it is legal, or should or shouldn't be.  But on what basis could be legally prohibited?

Progz raises an interesting point in asking WHY the games are being made.  Who plays them, and why?  Personally, I'm not sure why anybody would want to.  I haven't played any of these kind of games, so I can't answer that.  


Cobra,

The difference between cutting off a virtual character's head off and a real person's head is that you are depriving one of his life, and the other isn't even alive to begin with.

I can only repeat what others have said, censorship is a slippery slope, and I'd rather have a little too much freedom than a little too less.  Let the individuals decide what is right for themselves.  When it starts infringing on others, then it's gone too far.

Quote
The difference between cutting off a virtual character's head off and a real person's head is that you are depriving one of his life, and the other isn't even alive to begin with.

Where have I said otherwise?

I don't see how it's double standards to say that two extremely different products appealing to very different human desires have different effects, Cobra... I can't quite understand how you can draw an equivalence between them to be honest. You seem desperate to associate a game you haven't played with the absolute worst elements of human society (murder, child abuse), in order to justify a general dislike of the concept of mainstream violent entertainment, and to back up your wanting to stop others from playing it. It's that kind of tactic that causes the media furore, but ultimately these games are not causing many problems, if any.

I don't want to come across as a free speech uber alles type person, btw, I'm not. People do have to make concessions unfortunately, we live together... but getting in fits about a basically harmless game has nothing to do with protecting society, if anything it's the opposite.

I agree with LF generally, and some elements of what ProgZ said. It's sad that Rockstar can, or think they can sell a game on the elements they put into Manhunt, but in my opinion it's laughable to lock it away entirely, in this case.

Cobra never said that. But as to what cobra DID say, I think the biggest difference is, no one's publishing child porn games. This seems to be more a debate over what should a government do WHEN they have to step in, but I think the fact that there's no child porn games (to my knowlage) being published, and there are a ton of ridiculously violent games releasing monthly proves the difference between the two. We are a prodominantly violent species. It's in our nature. We are NOT a prodominantly child raping species. (not saying it dosn't happen, but it's nota common human trait.)

Quote from: cobra79 on Sat 23/06/2007 20:06:25
...I just don't see a difference between cutting a polygonal characters head off and raping a polygonal child. Both are revolting and in both cases there is no victim.

My apologies to you cobra, I misread the above post as reading, "I just don't see a difference between cutting a polygonal character's head off and a real person's head off."

You posted it while I was writing another response, and I was trying to include all of the most recent posts in my own.  Just misread it.  

I think it should be noted that the BBFC isn't government controlled.  It's the industry regulating itself, which is quite different to RAR-GOVERNMENT-BANNING.  Additionally, local/national government has the final say as to what is/isn't shown or sold, they just tend to go along with the BBFC's decisions.

Although it was set up by the film industry long ago, the BBFC does have strong ties to the government, and its ratings are legally binding, unlike ratings systems in some other countries. It's not quite the same as direct government censorship, but it's very similar.

I thought about what you said scotch and yes my argumentation was a bit over the top, not because I was desperate to associate Manhunt with the worst of human society, but because I think that not only censorship is a slippery slope. Violence is too. I can feel it every time I see the news. Car bomb in Iraq: 70 dead Iraqis 6 dead Americans. Do I feel any sympathy? No. The constant violence makes me numb and it takes some really shocking images to get me out of my rigor. I don't think I am the only one feeling like this and that is why I think we as a society are heading in the wrong direction. I am against banning CS or Doom3 or Mortal Kombat, but games like Manhunt which only aim to depict death as real and grisly as possible today pave the road to even extremer levels of violence tomorrow.
To avoid the descent into barbarism I think that banning games should remain a last option. I certainly have no problem if anyone thinks otherwise, but in quintessence: I appreciate the ban of Manhunt 2.

@raggit

QuoteMy apologies to you cobra, I misread the above post...

no problem

Quotegames like Manhunt which only aim to depict death as real and grisly as possible today pave the road to even extremer levels of violence tomorrow

You're still making the argument that Manhunt leads to more violence. And that's just not true.

Manhunt is a symptom of a larger disease (if we will be so arrogant as to call it that) that you have alluded to: our cultural obsession with violence. But removing one symptom will not cure that disease; nor, indeed, removing all symptoms. The government cannot cure this, because the problem lies within the hearts and minds (if you will pardon the cliche) of its people; and the government cannot control that, disregarding Orwellian measures (which is why the slippery slope is dangerous in this case: if they try, and they keep going until it works, that's how far they'll have to go). The only thing that can change a culture is the people who constitute it (which is why, of course, someone smart once said that cultural change is glacial). It takes a long time to convince people, but any quicker methods, like what you've proposed, simply won't work.

Quote from: voh on Sat 23/06/2007 10:44:42
But doesn't that mean the games are a symptom rather than the cause? I think so.

Quoting myself to show that I agree with the above poster. Violent games are a symptom rather than a cause from my viewpoint, but I also accept the possibility of being wrong. I just don't think I am.

I dont believe anything should be banned. Just rated in an apropriate way and only stocked and made avalible to people who fit the ratings. Viedo game stores should have an Adults only section similar to Video Shops. Photo identification should be needed to prove your age.

This approach would make game manufactures less likely to make those sort of games as they will only be avalible in limited places and make games for a more wider audience. Those who like that stuff can still get what they want with out the children being exposed to it.


Society these days lacks too much personal responsibility. Im sick of people doing stupid things and blaming Movies, Video games, depression, being abused as a child or any number of scapegoats.

Quote from: LimpingFish on Sat 23/06/2007 20:09:32

The "Freedom of Speech has no line to cross!" argument is as naive as it is redundant, as society will always draw a line regarding what we find "acceptable" and what we don't. We do it ourselves everyday.

You just made a double standard.    We AS INDIVIDUALS draw a line about what's appropriate.   Society cannot censor the word "banana" if 60% of Iowians are offended by the word.     

On broadcast television ten years ago Dave Letterman whined & groaned when Madonna said "fuck" on the air.   He personally apoligized to an elderly couple in the audience.     Today, there's a reocurring segment where a cursing man yells "fuck you Dave!" & leaves the theater.   For years, the FCC was trying to babysit kids ( like me ) from hearing the word.   I heard it anyways... as a taboo.   Censorship fails & actually makes taboo subjects even more desired and popular.   What's the point of censorship?   

You say society agrees that Manhunt is bad... when in fact, 13 - 40 year olds will form a line around the mall on the day that it's released.   There's a market for it, and the market will grow the more restrictions you put on it.    There's no bureaucratic entity that can properly assess "appropriate."  AND THEN GOVERN all innapproprotiate things away.  It's simply unrealistic, and might I say "naive"????

With every new violent title a discussion of this sort pops up. Be it inspired by the game, by the people suing the game, the people blaming the game or simply the people banning the game.

I have to say that any individual that cannot identify the difference between killing hi res polygon models and real people should be locked up and taken away to the looney bin. I have recently played a really addictive game which I played about 4-5 times purely because it was humorous and visually appealing. The animation was awesome etc.

http://www.doodie.com/anger_management.php

It's called whack your boss. The point is I have no urge to whack my boss, heck I am my boss. So that wont make sense :D But this was amazingly to much fun.

Anyway let me go on to say how many people has the game Hitman inspired to become hitmen? How many people have enrolled to become specialized agents like splintercell since playing Splintercell? In all fairness shows like the Sopranos are more violent than the games we play, and yet no one is running around accusing the show of teaching people how to whack each other. Screaming "TONY made me do it TONY made me do it"  why because there is no such hype around tv shows making kids kill each other, yet since the first killing blamed to a video game, this has become an uprising trend. KIDS blame anything other than themselves, let's face it when we were children any excuse that sounded remotely valid in our little brains, we blurted it out to try and avoid the hiding or punishment of our lives.

Even games with a positive influence like lets say Capitalism hasn't influenced me to even remotely start another business or implement some of the teachings from the game. Heck even Cashflow hasn't gotten that into me yet (And I play these games quite often)

I can go on and on through more examples but why?

The point remains when you can't differentiate between reality and virtual "reality" then you my friend need to go to a little white padded cell, or take really strong sedative medication.   

Evenwolf, I said Manhunt 2 is an exploitative and obvious ploy to profit from the fact that we live in a society that believes we are unable to differentiate between the real and the unreal.

Where people will argue that, yes, people can be influenced by what they see and hear.

Where someone can murder and eat his family and claim that playing Max Payne one to many times made him do it. And have society take him seriously.

Where parents wilfully buy Manhunt/Scarface/Reservoir Dogs for their 12 year old sons, because they're "just video games".

Where publishers and developers will deliberately target an audience not yet mature enough (not by society's standards, but by the standards of common sense) to be viewing such material.

It is a product that uses society's already prejudiced and uneducated view of video games to generate revenue, by playing on those very points you claim censorship creates. It uses negativity as a basis for marketing.

I don't say Manhunt 2 corrupts, I say Manhunt 2 is corrupt.

This is not censoring someone's right to express themselves, it's censoring someone's attempt to exploit.

EDIT: If this is about freedom of speech, in the US at least, nobody was stopping Take 2 from releasing Manhunt 2 uncut with an AO (Adults Only) rating. Of course, this would impact dramatically on profits, hence Take 2's temporary shelving of the game.

But if this is a game meant for adults, then what's Take 2's problem?

QuoteEDIT: If this is about freedom of speech, in the US at least, nobody was stopping Take 2 from releasing Manhunt 2 uncut with an AO (Adults Only) rating. Of course, this would impact dramatically on profits, hence Take 2's temporary shelving of the game.

But if this is a game meant for adults, then what's Take 2's problem?

This is where it become problematic. Even if Take 2 wanted to release it with an AO rating and the dramatically reduced profits, they couldn't even do so as Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony forbid third party publishers to release AO rated products on their consoles.

Not to mention the fact that many stores won't even stock AO-rated items.

This is not even in question here. Even if the stores wouldn't mind having it on their shelves, or even if they decided to sell it online directly from their website, the AO rating completly prevent them from releasing their game on Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft's consoles.

Hum.... I'm not naturally for any censorship but :

Violence as a symptom of something else...

Hum... No.

Is it me or in the last 30 years any attempt to solve X question always turn on to : It's only the symptom of Y : Where Y is bigger, deeper, wider, more cultural, more insidious, more inconscient, more  anything else. But always conceptual and impossible to directly touch / legiferate / modified on the concrete world.

The reallity is, in that case, that our societies violence level came from 10's of factors including free violences from some video games. The fact that other factors play roles (name your favorites here), are not an argument to avoid a possible action
against one of the constituent factor. I do agree that a local ban of 1 video game are not a miracle answer. But it's a part of an answer.

LUnique"There is no Miracle answer anyway"Dan

Erm, the argument was that violent entertainment (and violent video games in particular and Manhunt to be even more particular) are a symptom (or, I suppose a less judgemental term would be "manifestation" or even "result"/"effect" -- the point is that it comes after the problem, not before) of a cultural obsession with violence.

There isn't a concrete cure, you're right, because it's not a concrete problem. It's a problem with people and only people can solve it -- by changing themselves. We can't do that. There is no quick fix for this.

That may sound depressing/cynical/avoidant/whatever... but, to bring up a much more extreme example, consider the War on Drugs. We've spent how many years and how many dollars and how many lives trying to stop the symptoms of drug abuse -- illegal drug trafficking -- and (at least according to the figures I've seen) we've barely made a scratch in the drug industry. From what I've read (which is admittedly probably biased and perhaps therefore unreliable) rehab facilities and similarly-aimed efforts have much more of an effect than all the arrests, stings, etc. made by law enforcement.

Obviously it's not so simple with violence, because there's no one obvious "cause" -- but that's my point. Drugs have one easy "cause" and fighting that doesn't even help. How can we seriously think that banning video games or any violent entertainment will have any significant effect on a violence-obsessed culture?

Quote from: Afflict on Sun 24/06/2007 08:55:47Anyway let me go on to say how many people has the game Hitman inspired to become hitmen? How many people have enrolled to become specialized agents like splintercell since playing Splintercell?

Afflict, I can tell you this: After playing Tomb Raider: Legacy, I've been inspired to don short shorts, buy some guns, put my hair in braids, get implants, and roam around old tombs looking for treasures. I've even killed a tiger or two.


But in all seriousness, after playing a violent video game (which I do rarely), like GTA, I actually feel better. Mainly because I've let off a LOT of steam. I can't tell you the number of times I've been stuck in traffic in real life and said to myself "I can't wait until I fire up GTA and crash into idiotic drivers and pedestrians!"

That doesn't mean I'm going to eventually hit cars and pedestrians recklessly in real life. It means that I use the video game as an outlet for my anger and frustration, and I'm sensible enough to not be violent in real life.

Maybe Take 2 isn't pushing the video game limits, maybe they are just trying to level with the limit in the other medias.

Hollywood can produce movies like Hostel and Saw, and the oriental cinema produced samurai and ninja flicks with people getting their limbs and heads chopped off and blood pumped at the rate of firehose in the direction of the camera. Both ended in the cinema, both ended in the blockbusters' shelves, and some of them became classics and cults movies. Same thing with porn movie, they all end up in the adult section of the blockbusters and the sex shops, without any lost profits.

Comics books and manga can have as much nudity, sex and violence too. You've got some manga that often feature both at the same time, with samurai chopping each others into slices, spiced with some gratuitous sex scenes in between. It's also the same with european and american comics industry. Frank Miller come to my mind here, with his Sin City and Hardboiled. Yet, all of those end up in comics and manga shops, yet again without any loss in their profits.

Cartoons? Is there anything animes or South Park haven't done? And these both end up on the cartoons channels next to the Simpsons, Futurama and King of the Hill.

Books? Now I don't really know much about the book industry, but you can write on both subjects, and as long you can find a publishers, you can get your books in the library shelves. Anybody remember reading the Rats books series back in high school? The edition who published this was specialized in publishing that kind of stuff IIRC.

But if you make the mistake of making a video game with too much blood, too much violence or porn with crappy looking vectorized characters, you'll be accused of corrupting the youth and nobody will put your game on their shelves. Careless of the fact that the video games demography keep on getting older.

Maybe it's simply Take 2 who are trying to get too close to the other medias' limit while the video game media is still in its infancy and regarded as something for kids only, not for a broad spectrum of ages. Regarding the comparison between Manhunt 2 and child porn, were Take 2 to make a game that involve child pornography, racism, antisemitism or ethnic cleansing propaganda, I think we would react the same way as if one of the previous media I listed above did the same.

Regarding the symptom/cause argument, every generations tried to find a scapegoat for all that was wrong in the youth of today. It has been rock and roll music that pushed teenagers to rebel from their parents authority, those immoral Elvis's pelvic thrusts and Johnny Cash that corrupted the mind of the teenages girls, comic books with Batman and Robin sleeping in the same bed, motorcycle, tattoo, Dungeon and Dragon that turned kids into satanists, rock, punk, metal and gangsta rap music, horror and violent movies, Harry Potter, Marilyn Manson, goth culture, GTA and all the violent video games...

And it never worked. Every generations will have its bullies, its punks and its screwed up kids, kids who'll have been badly raised, kids who's parents were missing, beating them or too busy working to watch what their kids did or who never had a good and serious discussion about sex, drug, violence, what was right and what was wrong in this world, kids who'd need a good kick in the butt to put them back on the right track, kids with parents too laxist, or simply hopeless kids who are already lost causes, no matter how many time their parents will try. Ban violent games and they'll simply find something else to fill that hole until they get bored and decide to pass to the acts.

Personally, I prefer to have these kids relieving their stress and frustration and living their slums fantasies confortably sitting in their room playing GTA rather than having them in the streets and screwing their life out of boredom or pressures.

Thanks for all the great replies! I have been reading but have not had the time to respond yet, but I will soon. But I doubt I can reply to everyone's points! :p good stuff

Maybe this isn't totally off-topic, but along the lines of video games pushing the limits:

http://www.honestgamers.com/systems/content.php?review_id=4775&game_id=21487&console_id=13

Yeah, they're 3d models and no one is technically getting hurt... but if we replace simulated murders with another illegal act (in this case, rape), does the argument still hold?

I realize it's inconsistent, but I'm the first to admit that the link I posted disturbed me slightly more than anything I read or saw about Manhunt 2.

Besides, the violence in the game looks cheesy (Rockstar games tend to fall on the lower end of a system's graphics technology anyways). Sneaking up behind someone and pulling out one of their vertebrae with a pair of pliers? Give me a break.

That being the case, I don't think Rockstar can hide behind the fact it's "only a game", especially in today's social climate.

Now that's just fucked up.  That's all there is to it.

I think a rape simulator is about as equally fucked up as Manhunt, and as long as kids can't buy it and adults know what they're getting I think they should be allowed to sell it. (There's legal fake-rape porn, isn't there? Or am I mistaken? I really don't care to try to find out...)

I can't believe that they made Manhunt 2, the first one, in my opinion sucked ass and was boring as hell.

Quote from: big brother on Tue 26/06/2007 23:59:15
That being the case, I don't think Rockstar can hide behind the fact it's "only a game", especially in today's social climate.

Then movie makers, poets, authors, artists, singers, songwriters, rappers, sculpters, etc can't "hide" behind "it's only a 'medium of choice'!"

When do you draw the line?

Quote from: big brother on Tue 26/06/2007 23:59:15
Maybe this isn't totally off-topic, but along the lines of video games pushing the limits:

<etc...>

Oh my god, ahahaha! That review made me laugh so damn hard it's not normal :D

Though disgusted? No. Surprised? Not at all. Fucked up? Sure! Something I'm going to download/purchase? Hell no! Still grinning at the review? Awww yeah ;)

I'm just highly amused at all the hubbub Manhunt is creating (again), as well as carefully apprehensive at how this plays out. If violent(?) games are banned, where do we draw the NEW line? Are we going to ban Doom as well? Are we going to ban Wolfensteijn alltogether (rather than just in Germany)?

Are we going to ban every single game which involves shooting someone? Everything which shows blood? Everything where pain is either obvious or implied? Do we need to get our games underground?

Man, this is almost enough to get me to make the goriest, nastiest (though rape-free, of course) and most evil adventure game ever.

Bloodbath: The Disemboweled Death Orgy! Oh man, I can't wait! ;)

Sign me up for a copy!

QuoteAre we going to ban every single game which involves shooting someone?

Shush, the Germans will accuse you of stealing their ideas. (Cheap shot, yeah.)

This is stupid. UK may ban whatever they want, but there's no point in this.

Manhunt? Uncensored violence was what made this game so controversial. Psychological layout was what made it actually exciting. A hammer cracking into a skull in a dark alleyway. I'd say that I am getting kick out of it indeed. Alot.

But that isn't what makes the game interesting: glass pieces, small clubs and ordinary tools are not important because they're violent, but because they express your characters fear and weakness against enemies. You don't have a minigun and full armor vest. If you're seen, enemies will gather and kick your brains out. You must hide, sneak, run.

This is keeping me in constant excitment and fear throughout the game. And what's better reward than sneak behind that bastard that has beaten me way too many level restarts in a row  and strangle him with plastic bag? Take this, sucker... Also, manhunt sports one of the most realistic hand-to-hand combat system seen in computer game in last 10 years, at least.

I don't actually see Manhunt as something exceptionally gory or violent. "Nightmare on Elm street" (the movie) for example wasn't banned anywhere. And everybody has seen it, or some of its sequels, though it was much gorier at times. Well, or take random horror movie. Or even a game. How about fatalities in Mortal Kombat series? Ripping head out along with backbone? Huh. It wasn't even blurry 3D at first, but photographed sprites... How much close to real could thing get?

And there was time when countries wanted to ban Grand Theft Auto. Yes, the very first, 2D one. And Carmageddon.
Looking at those games today, it feels really funny.

I heard the story about the murder too. This is as stupid as something may be.
Any maniac could use any excuse for being a maniac. It doesn't make the excuse guilty.

For example, how many sick, evil people have said after their bad deed that Allah said them to do so?
Should UK start a campaign to ban Islam for this...?

Sometimes I have this feeling that most of the western world is made of 100% pure idiots...

Violent games ARE fun, and banning them == banning fun. Not all games, of course, but what people don't like, people won't buy, ban or no ban.

Anyway, human is human and flesh is flesh. Which means that horror and violence has a limit. Yes, there is a point where something couldn't be more horrible and violent.

You don't believe me? Read Remarque's "Spark of Life". I take this book as most violent and fearful thing I've ever seen in any form of media. It's written so it plays on same effect as Manhunt: showing naked violence it its simple, but nauseating and extremely terrifying form. It takes only a piece of rope, rusted nail or simple stick - and a living, breathing victim to create the highest possible level of violence and horror. We're just not used to see it that way, not without flashing gunfights and explosions. Seeing this turns people inside out and they start marking this as something extraordinary. But this is real and it works... I've read the book and I haven't killed anyone yet. I've played the game and I don't feel like doing anything seen in game to anyone...

So, bring it on, Take 2!

One thing that I've been thinking of:

The people that you go after after are all made out to deserve the brutal death. They're portrayed as criminals and violent, unpleasant, horrible individuals. And if the game bothers you that much, I say don't play it. There's plenty of other material out there that's just as disturbing, if not worse. And as for violent games causing violence, I highly doubt that. I play plenty of violent games, but I'm not mentally disturbed. If anything, I think letting off steam through a video game is better then doing it in real life.

QuoteIf you don't like it, don't play

...well, I think this debate is largely about what kids - who don't always know what's best for them - do on their spare time.

Also, I find the argument about letting out steam quite weird. Is running over pedestrians with a stolen car the only means of stress relief you can come up with?

Quotebetter doing it in computer games than in real life, etc etc

You shouldn't have a desire to commit serious crimes of violence either way. People who argue like this should ask themselves where this urge comes from.

But none of it is real Andail...

Would you rather instead someone read a book to relieve stress? If so remind them not to read a violent book because that is somehow a less valid form of stress relief because of the fake violence. Also, don't watch any violent movies... No shadow boxing because that is based on violence... Don't take your aggression out on constructing something in the basement because that could be viewed as you using tools to beat things up and it's an obvious leap that you'll start using hammers on people's heads and constructing spice racks out of pedestrians.

I kid but your post comes off as very condescending and not well thought out. What stress relievers get the green light?

Everybody has agression in their systems - it's normal. How we deal with it differs. Some like to go and run a mile or 4, some like to punch the stuffing out of a punching bag in the garage, some like to listen to fast, aggressive music, and some prefer to play violent games so that they can get their aggression out through a proxy.

QuoteYou shouldn't have a desire to commit serious crimes of violence either way. People who argue like this should ask themselves where this urge comes from.

It sounds as if you're saying that relieving aggression in a non-harmful way is unnatural, as well as feelings of aggression, annoyance and frustration.

When you get home after a frustrating day of, say, annoying coworkers, maybe a study mate who's being a royal twat, traffic that's just there to annoy you (or so it seems), or any other form of annoyance which will leave you with a mood that's far from sparkling, what do you do?

I know what I do. I either grab my guitar to play aggressive music, turn on the stereo to listen to it or possibly fire up Grand Theft Auto or an equivalent game which involves beating people to a bloody pulp (causing me to giggle).

Either I get rid of my pent-up frustration, or I just keep my bad mood throughout the rest of the day. I'd rather get a chuckle over a virtual broken backbone than let the BS ruin the rest of my day :)

Quote from: voh on Wed 27/06/2007 15:41:42Either I get rid of my pent-up frustration, or I just keep my bad mood throughout the rest of the day. I'd rather get a chuckle over a virtual broken backbone than let the BS ruin the rest of my day :)

Bingo. I will admit that I don't have the physicality to run a mile, nor can I afford a punching bag...nor can I afford to punch a wall or two. ;) But I do have video games and that's one of my means of relieving stress and frustration and aggression. If I don't release it, I've found that I lash out at people, including my wife, who doesn't deserve that.

So, you see, I'd rather beat up a 3D game character or two than yell at my wife.

Yeah, you know, I think it's important to recognize that almost all of the time when people let out steam by playing violent videogames they aren't satisfying an actual, real, honest-to-goodness urge to commit horribly violent acts. It's just general frustration, isn't it?

Heh, yeah well maybe my post wasn't thought through. I just find it frightening that a lot of people seem to regard computer games as an alternative to commit real life crimes.

Does it really relieve you of stress to run down pedestrians in GTA? Maybe it does, but, with the risk of sounding "condescending", I'm quite sure there must be better ways. I don't think shadow boxing is destructive, I don't even think real boxing is as destructive as pretending to torture or murder people, because typically boxers agree to engage in a ritualized fighting, consentually.

And if you think I've been condescending so far, you'd better cover your eyes now. Really, take a long walk, go for a swim, even punch that punching bag, and I can assure you'll feel much less stressed.

[/condescending]

Well, I think people sometimes play videogames in general, not just violent ones, as a means of relieving stress. The violent ones are simply included in that. Of course, for me, a game like Manhunt that's focused on sneaking around and avoiding detection would be more stress inducing than relieving, anyway. I'd rather play something more lighthearted and easy to relieve stress.

Back when I took comparative literature, the professor was obsessed with the detective stories and the dime pulp novels of old. At the height of their popularity, they were the source of controversy. From a narrative standpoint, they are arranged backwards, starting with the result then backtracking to the cause. Apparently, a lot of people were upset with this, because when trying to solve the murder, the reader would put themselves in the suspect's shoes, mentally re-enacting the deed. The possible connection between the literary act and a "real" one is explored in novels like "Strangers on a Train", where the main character (who becomes a murderer) reads a lot of these mystery books.

Quote from: Andail on Wed 27/06/2007 16:40:42
I don't even think real boxing is as destructive as pretending to torture or murder people, because typically boxers agree to engage in a ritualized fighting, consentually.

First off, when I play a violent game, I'm not "pretending" to torture or murder people. You sound like Jack Thompson, as if I'm using it to practice before I venture out into the world to try it on real people, y'know stabbing them with frozen turkeys and hammering their faces into walls. Wait. That's nonsense. No, what I AM doing is I'm hitting rendered make-belief faux humans with a rendered make-belief faux car. Replace either of those with fitting alternatives such as dogs, ice picks, whatnot, and you probably still won't get the picture.

What part of "IT'S NOT REAL" do you not understand? Sure, you obviously know it's a game and not real, but I fail to see this "link" which you hammer at, which is supposed to exist between violent game players and violent people. That for some reason somebody who enjoys a good violent, gory game such as Bloodbath Maximus: Ultra Death Orgyâ,,¢ is obviously a very violent person for enjoying such a thing.

Also. Real boxing isn't destructive because the boxers agree to engange consentually? First off, yes it's destructive. You beat someone. Often to a pulp. Consent or not, knowing that most boxers have broken something in their face means, to me, that it's quite destructive.

But okay, let's assume it's not destructive. Does that mean that whenever I cause any permanent damage to one of the models existing out of nothing but dots of light I'm engaging in something non-consentual? That I owe them an apology? I'm not sure my insurance covers damage done to imaginary things.

But going for a walk doesn't relieve stress for me, I don't want to punch a punching bag and going for a swim in mid winter isn't an option, can't I just load up a game and play it? Obviously everyone is different and acts differently, right? One form of stress relief for one dude might not "work" for another so it's up to the individual to find the best form of stress relief. Some people find playing video games is the best for them.

Load up World of Sand (http://ishi.blog2.fc2.com/blog-entry-158.html) or Hate Clown (http://www.fun-motion.com/physics-games/i-hate-clowns/) or Unreal Tournament with easy bots and insta-gib turned on and I can't assure you you'll feel much less stressed because maybe you won't and maybe all you need is a quiet room and a hampster in your lap. Just don't make it seem like we don't know how to make decisions for ourselves when it comes to how we relieve stress.

Voh, I don't think I said that there is a link between computer game violence and real life violence. You want me to be like Jack Thompson so much you put words in my mouth.

Let me break down what I actually said:
* It's rather frightening when people say that torturing or molesting people in video games make them less inclined to do so in real life (or "beat to a pulp" to use your favourite phrase). Or just yell at their wives, whatever. Even though they are pixles. I do understand the notion of "not real" quite well, Voh, so chill out. But they are after all not only pixels, they also represent something, right? I just find it worrying that people are so full of that kind of stress, period.
* I question the benefits of violent computer games when it comes to stress relief. Sure, everyone's entitled to their opinions, but so am I, I guess. I know that a lot of kids today act extremely frustrated and stressed when they play their games (or at least when they get interrupted, or get killed, which happens a lot).
If ultra-violent video games really are so beneficial in this respect, we can look forward to bright times, so let's hope.

Since this idea about physical activity is such a controversial topic, I'm gonna give it a rest here. We all live our lives as we wish anyway.

Btw, well boxing can be destructive, I didn't say it wasn't (again you're twisting my words), I said I don't think it's as destructive as pretending to molest or torture people. Furthermore, last time I boxed, I didn't beat anyone to the pulp. It's just a form of exercise if you want it to be.

Looking at this video it seems to me the stress relief argument does not hold for everyone.  :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBVmfIUR1DA

It's fake but it's funny.

I'd say that playing violent games casually is why I never get as angry as MrColossal described. Stupid coworkers and general BS won't raise that high in my case.

Hectic.

Where are the good ol days when playboy relieved every bodies stress ;)
LoL @ TerranRich and his implants ;) & at a couple of really other kewl posts that I am to lazy to refer to now.

Ok let me start at the really weird rape game. I have no issue with it, very concerning? Yes Why? Because this seems to look more like a god damn trainer on how to rape people. Honestly I don't give a crap how many people play the game as long as it settles that inner urge and they don't rape real people, they can rape polygons and their hand all night long. Heck I'll even let them rape their hand the whole day long.

A couple of things need to be made very clear, when A game is absolute mindless carefree violence I say sell it to the mass market and save some lives.

By playing these games you cannot ever blame the game and say the game made me do it, that's like saying I playes chess and now I am off to kill the King. It's like I said in my prior post in case anybody skipped it, since the first murders were blamed on games it's become a more popular excuse. Blaming something or someone else is easier than facing the music.

It's like MrColossal said, they hide behind any medium but where do we draw the line. Technically I should be the guy with the highest frag rate on the planet if these were indeed the facts. I mean I listen to rap sometimes, I listen to death metal, and rock. I watch the most violent movies I can get my hands on. I play the most violent video games on the market, and I study martial arts.

So in the event of anything unpleasant happening I am going do the following. In no specific order until I hit a bargain that reduces my sentence to psychiatric therapy and house arrest.

Blame Bill Gates

Blame MegaDeath & Rob Zombie

Blame 50 cents

Blame every motivational book for teaching me how to take action.

Blame Every Possible Video game starting from Rush & Attack & Golden Axe. (Depending on my specific crime) Working my Through to Grand Theft Auto, Man Hunt.

Blame Bruce Lee for developing Jeet Kune Do If that doesn't work I'll work my way down to my Sense for letting me train full contact.

Next up we have Brainscan (Movie) that I was dreaming I was playing GTA & when I woke up I had blood on my hands! Or some BS like that. BTW watch Brainscan cause its awesome :D (Well was when I was like 8) In the event it is not murder or the like I will blame it on oceans eleven & every other Heist movie I can recall. & if all else fails blame Pulp Fiction & Gummy Bears.

Next up I will blame the arcade shooter games like house of the dead * any medication that I conveniently would of taken before my hectic masterful crime.

Blame CSI & Bones & Medical detectives for making me want to test the system.

If all else fails I will pull out my Rubiks Cube and Blame it and tell the officer that it has indeed pushed me over the edge, and bestow the glorious cube to him.... in which I will have at least 24-hours before he shoots me for giving him the unsolvable cube (This will only work as long as you have the local cops cause the FBI guys might actually be able to solve the cube, but either way enough time to escape will be available)  to plan & escape... and in the event of recapture I will blame the Great Escape (Pc Game) & The Rock (Movie) For planting the seeds to my Jail break.

I mean really wtf? Seriously we can blame anything, and as humans I know that 99.9% of humans blame something in some area of their lives that didn't work out 100%. When really the problem is within ourselves.

Like I said if anything influences you to go and kill someone, well then call the cops to fetch you before you even commit the crime, and seek help. Cause then you must have your Keyboard and your mouse wires plugged into each others ports...

(I am pretty tired ATM and no I am not going to proof read the post, so in the event of repetitive content read the blame list and pick one, and that will be my excuse)

Quote from: Afflict on Wed 27/06/2007 22:52:15
MegaDeath

Tssk tssk! It's Megadeth! ;)

I'd blame...

...stupid parents growing little maniacs and then deflecting this with some game or tv-show to blame.
If you, mother or father - raised a murderer, you fucked whole thing up. REALLY bad.
Probably there was no parent for this kid, and WHOLE parenting side was left to a videogame, if there's even a bit truth in the story. Anyway, if a child kills another, one and only murderer in the case is the parent. And kid just needs some beating to understand that violence is - indeed painful and not something to practise on others.

*applauds*

Thank you, InCreator, I tried to post that a couple of hours back but couldn't find the right words.

The best I could do was "violent video games != bad parenting, where bad parenting is the cause of most dysfunctions".

LOCATION: GameWorld, leicester, UK

Parent decides to purchase a game for their young child.

Matt: "You're aware this 18 rated game has violence, swearing, sex and drug content?"
Parent: "Yeah whatever it's fine. It's just a game, innit."

Quote
I'd blame...

...stupid parents growing little maniacs and then deflecting this with some game or tv-show to blame.
If you, mother or father - raised a murderer, you fucked whole thing up. REALLY bad.
Probably there was no parent for this kid, and WHOLE parenting side was left to a videogame, if there's even a bit truth in the story. Anyway, if a child kills another, one and only murderer in the case is the parent. And kid just needs some beating to understand that violence is - indeed painful and not something to practise on others.

Nice broad brush you're painting with there.  Whilst I agree that parenting is definitely an issue that needs to be considered, some people are just mentally unstable due to genetics or whatever, and that's not necessarily anything to do with their parents.  Perhaps the reason some kids are violent is because they -have- experienced violence first hand, and somehow feel justified in treating others the same?

I have to say I very much agree with Andail's statement here:

QuoteI just find it frightening that a lot of people seem to regard computer games as an alternative to commit real life crimes.

If I relied on video games in order to not go out and beat people up, I'd be exceedingly worried about the state of my mental health.

Mowing down pedestrians in GTA does NOT relieve stress for me.   Saints Row has ragdoll physics and therefore DOES relieve me of stress!!!!!!

FACT: Ragdoll Physics Relieves Stress

;D

i'm not sure if games really do relieve stress for me (sometimes they actually cause it), they just entertain me long enough so that i forget about being stressed.
but what exactly do kids have to be stressed about these days?
i know when i was a teenager the main thing stressing me out was school and it has had a long lasting effect on my mental health. my parents never put any pressure on me to make up for their failings in life by doing well in school so they could boast to friends at dinner parties or anything, but still i found it stressful, i can't imagine how stressful it is for people with pushy parents like that.
so taking that into consideration maybe there is something to the parenting issue that InCreator brought up, plenty of people who have had tough upbringings end up doing rather psychotic things (such as Ed Gein to name but one), plus some people are just born bad.
it's just that videogames are very widespread these days and are an easy catalyst for people to blame along with other things such as heavy metal music which people either don't understand or just plain dislike and try to force their opinions on other people.
it's all just very silly.

I think video games (at least in my personal experience) are more of a stress deferrer than a stress reliever. That is, I can escape into Unreal Tournament or Diablo or something else for a few hours (or days...) and avoid thinking about what's causing me issues, but when I'm done the issues that cause that initial stress almost always still remain and continue to do so. It's really just another form of procrastination.

I actually try to avoid playing games for "stress relief" and try to stick to games that I actually find interesting, challenging, thought-provoking (gasp!), or just fun.

Now that I think about it, I guess it's true that it's more of a distraction than a solution. But still, it's not a cause by any means. That's the point we're starting to stray from.

Read the second article of this page (http://www.penny-arcade.com/2007/02/21) before you seriously blame all on the parents.

QuoteBut what exactly do kids have to be stressed about these days?

Being bullied, not exactly fitting in, loneliness, bad grades, being sucky at sport, people discovering things you'd rather keep secret until university at least, having to deal with past humiliation, still having that high pitched voice, acne all over your face, not having a b/f or g/f when nearly everyone does, breaking up with your b/f or g/f, having pushy parents/teachers, peer pressures, homeworks, exams, those annoying 10-20 pages essay works, having a body like those you can find on paintings in museum, not on fashion magazines and garage calendar, etc. There's certainly more I forgot or that I'm not aware of. Some can deal with all of this and wake up every morning. Some don't.

Quote

QuoteI just find it frightening that a lot of people seem to regard computer games as an alternative to commit real life crimes.

If I relied on video games in order to not go out and beat people up, I'd be exceedingly worried about the state of my mental health.

It is not an alternative to commit real life crimes nor an outlet to criminal ideas, people don't go around thinking "If I don't frags at least 100 n00bs in Unreal Tournament pretty soon, I'm soooooo gonna kill everyone in this room!". It is an outlet for stress and frustration. Were I to live with months or years of cumulated frustrations and stress without having a way to let it out, chances are I wouldn't be talkable, I wouldn't think straight, I might have flipped out, gone postal or commited other thoughtless and unforgivable acts already.

I think Boyd, and Redwall, make good points there. Maybe playing these violent computer games are more like a momentary escape from the stress, rather than a long term therapy?

I can gladly admit that I too have found myself taking great pleasure in beating up innocent bypassers in GTA. So it's not like I'm some stiff puritan who just frowns upon the very concept of computer violence. But afterwards I asked myself "is this, as an activity, really making me more harmonic in the long run? Or was it just to quench a sudden urge?" And then I tried not to make it a habit, to refrain from it.

I still find the "what part of NOT REAL don't you understand!?"-argument flawed. Things that aren't real still represent stuff. If you'd find that your child's (or any other person, really) favourite activity was to tie Barbie to a bed and pretend that Ken raped her, over and over again, while giggling, wouldn't you - even though you'd know perfectly well that it wasn't real, grow a bit worried? Would you like to discuss this behaviour?
Sure, the characters in GTA are pixelated NPC's, not at all real. But if they didn't represent real people - if they were just random blocks of pixels - assaulting them would hardly present the same amusement, right?

Again, I'm not saying that people who indulge in such activities are violent by nature, or prone to commit real life crimes, so don't take it so darn personally. I'm just again wondering whether they should look for passtimes less destructive and morbide.

I have to say for me even thought the initial problem that caused the stress is still their I can now go (Revived) and deal with the problem where as before I was stressed out and not focussed I now have focus without the stress to re-asses the problem.

@ Terran Love the new Av.
@ Voh Tssk Tssk, pick a excuse. I didn't even realize my spelling msitake on that this morning.
@ Boyd I have to say that kids today stress themselves out so badly about utter BS which to them is important. To us we go WTF? I guess most of us in our youths were not running with the "popular" kids but had real friends (I am assuming this because every "popular" kid I did hang out with was superficial and skin deep. I then decided that it's not worth my time to try and fit into their "standards" and be a victim of the constant he said she said BS. Granted that this is about 10 years ago but lucky for me I was a very open minded & don't give a crap about what people think kind of kid.

The problem is (I know I have family that is still in school) They want to hang with the popular kids it's sort of a life or death situation if they don't make the cheer leading squad & they virtually starve themselves to try and look like all the photoshop celebs in the beauty mags... I also have the complete opposite of this in my family, where the kid has turned completely introvert and doesn't even want to communicate to normal people outside school. He has started home schooling just to get away from the kids in school. Luckily his parents are cool else he would of been pressured and forced to stay in school push high grades & would probably do something hectic in the long term.

Thinking about it now its people that would drive people to commit crimes, using the guy as an example he doesn't like violence yet he is one of the bigger kids. He never stands up for himself, yet when a kid threw a teacher in her face with a paper ball he beat the kid up. My point being this, being pushed beyond his kind believes will simply push him over the edge no matter what you to do him won't. Altough I am sure he beat up the kid for all the other times he didn't beat up the others.

Another case recently in the news here in SA is where two boys took an axe to another boy. Chpping him into bits, here is the thing, (Manhunt would probably been to blame) if the kids were not rural kids. They grow up in a shack they have no tv or pc, and they get basic education at the local school.

If they were rich kids or even middle class kids that had a tv, or pc and played games. The Games would for sure be in the firing line on this brutal killing. The kids are 8-10...

This topic is beginning to become serious food for thought.

Tonight I murdered about a thousand and a half Giant Ants, Spiders, and Robots in this game:

(http://media.teamxbox.com/games/ss/1621/1165880900.jpg)

It's quite innocent!   My motives are to stop an alien invasion by using everything from assault rifles, shotguns, rocket launchers to blow up their armies.   I can play with a second person & follow a team of NPC soldiers around the city.

The goal is to kill giant ants.   Now if I wanted to, I could turn to the guy on my left and blow his head off.   The video game is about giant ants but the soldiers still die when hit by friendly fire.    It's more realistic and causes the player to plan his attack.    If you shoot a rocket & a guy is standing right in front of your barrel, it does not safely pass through him & hit your target.    Everything inculding you explodes.

That's realistic too!   We're not just talking about having more detailed bullet holes and screams of horror when you kill innocent bystanders.   We're talking about gameplay that makes sense & also challenges you.    These kind of games are the true victim when it comes to censorship.     The wording gets all hazy & the fact that you CAN kill a human means that any law forbidding murder of humans will emcompass this game.   WHICH IS ABOUT KILLING BUGS & ROBOTS.       

It relieved a lot of stress for me.    And might I remind most of you that the word relief rarely ever is interpreted as "cure."    Relief itself is temporary.   If a boy has violent behavior and a doctor prescribes a violent videogame to cure him, I would advise we murder the doctor with a bayonet.

Just going to throw in a personal opinion:

These games are given an age restriction (in manhunt 2's case 18+ usually) that keeps kids from getting their hands on the games. Yes, this means that I think youg kids can be influenced negatively by this sort of material in some ways. Then again, how did the kids get their hands on the games? There was someone over 18+ that got them the games, or sold them the games. This would mean that its not the games fault, as it was not meant for children, but the adult's fault for failing to keep the game away from kids.

The way violent games affect youngsters and children? Simple! Only a few kids of the masses are already slightly or badly deranged and have a few screws loose in their heads. These few can take games so to heart that they begin re-enactments in real life. Then there's the 99,9% of underage players who dont do squat, because they are in their right mind.

Besides: does game violence really reflect in real life? Is it not the other way around? I talked to a few of my friends about the matter and they (as well as I) are in the lines of the following: We take out all anger and feelings of violence in videogames. We start up a violent videogame and blast the feck out of our enemies instead of doing it in real life. We could let out our violent feelings in the streets, beating up old granmas and little kids, but we dont. We play violent videogames and that's that! Videogame violence should be concidered as a sort of therapeutical way of relieving stress (this does not work with F.E.A.R. That thing CREATES stress... and makes me almos pee my pants sometimes...).

Final opinion:

No games should be banned and no material: violent, offensive, pornographic or anything else, denied access to from adults. The age restrictions should remain as-is, and "parents for security of children" organisations need to stop blaming the entertainment industries and start looking after their children. The saying: "Having a kid is a full time job" is no joke people!

(By the way: I am 17,9 years old (Sooo close!), played videogames from age of 6 and more or less violent ones from age of 8. Havent EVER even punched a person or tried to truly hurt another person. I have only hit someone in self defence, never to attack. Living a normal life, going to work and school and waiting for manhunt 2 to come out se I can PLAY!)

QuoteHavent EVER even punched a person or tried to truly hurt another person. I have only hit someone in self defence, never to attack.

For a 17 year old male, I'd say you had one hell of a nice childhood.
What amuses me is that people who beat up others are not videogame addicts, at least not on the level where  game content should make anyone worry about. Bad kids hang around and look for trouble, not spend nights on sneaking upon an NPC in a videogame.

Kid who is messed up enough to commit a murder, has alot more serious reasons to do so than just a game he played.
Maybe endless bullying in school? Really awful home/family life? Serious complexes? A motivated killer is a psychopath and there's something that caused it. In all cases, parental care should eliminate and handle these causes before it's too late. Unless kid is simply crazy, but our society doesn't charge mentally ill anyway.

I've played MOST of games ever released on PC, and all my personality has benefitted from it is good knowledge of modern weaponry, good knowledge of history and social systems... plus good hand-eye coordination. Nothing like urge to kill or maim anyone.

It's been said that video-gamers make better drivers, due to better hand-eye coordination and mental reflexes. ;)

Quick question... If video games cause violent behavior... Should there not be a correlation between violent criminals and QA testers?

Circles!So...many...circles!

Freedom of speech, Freedom of Choice, Bad Parenting, Big Brother, Censorship, etc, and not to belabour the point...ETC!

I have no problem with material such as Manhunt 2, Cuming in Socks 4,  or Hip Hop Beanie Cop-Killa Sex Farm Mix Cutz CD (with free drug spoon).

Sell it all, but sell it to (and market it at) adults. The term "Adult Material" is not vague terminology, and society (in the UK, US, Uraguay...) has set definitions as to who is of "Adult" age.

I'm sorry if the pornography industry has hijacked the word "Adult", and I see the irony in the term. I also see the hypocrisy in how stores (generally, but not exclusively, based in the US) refuse to stock anything labelled "Adult" and by doing so undermine any attempt to prevent non-adults from acquiring such material.

But this argument goes so far beyond "Do violent games cause violent behaviour?" that, by concentrating on such questions, all we are doing is confusing the issue.

Knee-jerk political reactions are dangerous and counter-productive, but so is the "Freedom of Speech! Unconditional! Everthing for everybody!" lark.

Both parties have the same faults: A general unwillingness to engage in compromise, and a general lack of, well...common sense. The situation at the moment is simply deadlocked.

Until we move past that obstruction, we're just pissing in the wind.

Freedom of Speech! ... For those old enough (18 in the US) to understand what it means to have that right, and what responsibilities come with it.

I didn't read much of what was already posted, but it's my strong personal opinion that if a video game entices you to go out and kill someone:
1: Your parent weren't doing their job, by talking to you and explaining that killing and hurting people is wrong, and that video games are fictional, and not real, or
2: You're just plain fucked up the head and you need to seek psychiatric help immediately.

If some kid told me, "I killed another kid because of a video game", the first thing that would be running through my mind would be, "Yeah, it wasn't Lee Harvey Oswald who killed Kennedy, it was the bullet who killed Kennedy."

does this look like stress relief to you?:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zTCAmmdNOKo
:P

I whole-heartedly support the AO-rating of Manhunt2.
The main purpose of the first manhunt game was to shock, which decreased gameplay a lot. I really can't imagine the sequel to be an improvement in any way. Maybe this AO-rating will give R* an opportunity to improve, and give us a game that is actually FUN TO PLAY for once!

Heh, those kids were wusses. Plus, horror games are not the same as semi-realistic shoot-em-up games. ;)

The day I made the mistake of playing Alien VS Predator (as Alien) was the worst day of my life.

I spent the entire day trying to walk up walls and kick people to death with my tail.

The fact that I didn't have a tail was by no means the worst - imagine me trying to kill someone and not finding the damn R_SHIFT button! How am I supposed to attack!

Funny thing, the people who play videogames the most - the ones who would theoretically play it to such an extent that they would indeed be induced to go out and wreak havoc - are, therefore, people who don't go out much. If they spend all that time playing VideoGames, their thumbs are really strong and their hand-eye coordination is superb, but it takes more than that to actually steal a car/kill a person/etc.

-------------------------

Been there, done that, we all know that banning games for reducing violence is silly, and we've all given countless reasons, and Michael Moore has already put it down to bowling (so don't bowl, and you won't kill).

I thought the issue was a different one? The ethics of making a game like this?

In the end, though, freedom is a beautiful thing. I don't think games like RapeLay or Manhunt should be made... HOWEVER, people are free to make them.

And the rest of the world is free not to play, if offended.

EDIT - At LimpingFish: ayuh, sell it to adults. Makes sense. But then the money starts talking... ah, the loveable human condition.

Quote from: 12431 on Sat 30/06/2007 15:17:12
does this look like stress relief to you?:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zTCAmmdNOKo
:P

Yes actually, they looked like they were having a lot of fun pretending to be scared!