Violent videogame justice

[m0ds]

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.

[ALPHATT]

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) 

[cobra79]

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 k a r i]

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.

[Redwall]

the 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).

[LimpingFish]

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.

[scotch]

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.

[Becky]

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.

[LimpingFish]

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.

[evenwolf]

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.

[voh]

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.

[markbilly]

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.

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

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?

[Darth Mandarb]

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?

[cobra79]

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.

[Darth Mandarb]

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

[mouthuvmine]

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.

[Harvester]

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  ).

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

[evenwolf]

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

[Raggit]

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.