Violent videogame justice

[cobra79]

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.

[Raggit]

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.

[voh]

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.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

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.

[scotch]

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...

[mouthuvmine]

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.

[cobra79]

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.

[LimpingFish]

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.

[Raggit]

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.

[cobra79]

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?

[scotch]

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.

[mouthuvmine]

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.)

[Raggit]

...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.  

[Becky]

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.

[scotch]

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.

[cobra79]

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

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

no problem

[Redwall]

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

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.

[voh]

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.

[Fee]

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.

[evenwolf]

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"????