Banning computer games?

[Bant Warick]

For the first time in ten years, A computer game was banned because of graphical violence in the game.

news story here BBC NEWS | England | Leicestershire | Censors ban 'brutal' video game

What are everyones thoughts on this? do you think this is going over the top? or is it justified because it actually is too violent?

Personally I think it's a little of both. with computers and consoles getting more powerful al the time, it's getting easier to produce more lifelike effects, But in the end it is just a game.

I played the first Manhunt and, although I enjoyed the game, there were times when I thought having a choice about how to execute a bad guy did seem a bit excessive.

 

[Foxbat]

Well it happens with films so I suppose it had to happen with games. I'm kind of on the fence here. I'm not convinced that such things do harm - I think that in many instances, they merely become an excuse for those intent on harm in the first place (eg. the computer game made me do it). When I was but a nipper the excuse used to be 'a big boy did it and ran away'.

On the other hand, I think we are, in effect, becoming more and more desensitized to the constant violence in papers, TV, etc. and we seem to crave more and more extreme ways to experience things.

It does, however, seem ironic that we have a society willing to ban a game because of its excessive violent content and yet are prepared to send our troops into excessively violent situations. Maybe we'd do better banning wars and forgetting about games.

Just my (very random) thoughts on the matter

 

[Joel007]

I fully agree that games are capable of tipping an already unstable mind over the edge, although I fail to see how a game capable of being played by the nintendo Wii could be too graphically realistic. The focus seems to be on the atmosphere of encouragement about the torturous and callous treatment of what are, inside the game, human beings.
Now I know they are merely collections of programmed pixels, but if I can get into the game and see them as more than that, and still kill them brutally, then I will be much more likely to contemplate dark thoughts about the people in real life who offend me.

 

[scalem X]

Well I'm with foxbat on the reason why those games are made.
However I think games 'inspiring' to kill isn't logical.
I can believe that through some pavlovian effect one might easier consider the thought of violence, because it worked for many sollutions before (in the game then), or one might be less reactive towards weapons. You see a gun lying around and pick it up instead of rather admiring it without touching it. But the actual deed will always have other inspirations and in many cases: points where most people would turn back, only the really wicked ones pull the trigger so to speak.

Banning or not? I find it sort of frustrating how games like this can count on this much publicity. That stuff like this is the new 'cool' (look I'm a gangsta!).
How many people have you killed in video games? Will it be like minority report soon? Giving your victim the face of your boss, then kill him virtually?

 

[Joel007]

I'm sure my death toll in games has surpassed the million mark easily, but most of the games I'd say were of the patriotic (kill the soldiers who are trying to invade your country), survival (placed in a situation where it is to fight or die), or totally "off the wall" unrealistic vein.

Maybe we need the opinion of someone who has actually played the game, since I don't know much about manhunt or manhunt2.

 

[brsrkrkomdy]

I'm not convinced that games caused people, even the unstable, to commit brutal acts of violence on countless human beings. Just for the sake of argument, an unstable guy goes on a killing rampage cuz he played a violent video game. Did the game tell him to go out and kill somebody? Or did he interpret them in his own mind as subliminal messages saying so? Same argument can be said for books, movies, music, and comics.
I still maintain that censors in general often used this as an excuse to ban whatever questionable material they don't like. Let's face it, most churches have a history of banning everything they don't like. So this recent one in England is no surprise.

 

[scalem X]

I can agree with you on the point of view, brsrkrkomdy, but not on the arguments. Those are superficial. The game didn't say him to do so, no. But games improve people's reaction speed, do they say you to improve it? No, they just say you have to get to be faster to get to a higher level and after a while you succeed. The same goes for the game requiring you to perform an act of 'virtual killing' to get to the next level. But it stays virtual killing, that's the difference. Reaction speed is a passive characteristic, virtual killing is also a passive characteristic (in general it is only the fact that you add this action to your known list of solutions).

I think it would be interesting to test the following:
have people play 'violent' games for say a month, a few hours each day
have another group of people playing non violent games for the same period
Then have them questions like give 10 possible sollutions to the following problem: You have tto pass an exam, your life depends on it (literally, you need to make sure you pass)
Probably the first group would have a list like:
study really hard, steal the exam questions, seduce the teacher, threaten the teacher, cheat, bribe the teacher,... (and also time how long they take to come up with the sollutions) (the 'bad' solutions may be inspired by games, by books, by television but although they have alternative ways, most of the people will end up just studying.)

Reading Tolkien might make you wish you were an elf or a hobbit or whatever (I personally don't think much people would come up with 'I wish I was a hobbit' unless inspired by Tolkien), but it's still your decision whether you will go as far as calling your children Bilbo and learning elvish and dressing up and who knows what...

I'm fairly certain that those who 'killed because of video games' would have turned out to be killers in the end anyway. But I do think that video games can inspire them to come up with the idea sooner.

On the banning, well I don't think it will matter, but it might be good to give big gaming compagnies the signal that they too should be aware that they have responcabilities.

 

[Connavar]

This wont change anything. The parent are patheic attention seekers. Blaming a game that dont even sell good. Choose a more famous game if you want attention....


Violent kids and murderers has been around long before there were any game consols.

Cause games doesnt make you who you are.
They dont change you. Most people has played violent gory games millions of times and if they were all becoming violent killers we would have seen it along time ago.

 

[Bant Warick]

Maybe we need the opinion of someone who has actually played the game, since I don't know much about manhunt or manhunt2.

Besides the usual 'shoot the bad guy' stuff, some other methods of killing the bad guys included. suffocating them with a plastic bag, stabbing them in the eyes with a shard of glass, hitting them with a hammer, throwing bricks and glass bottles and smashing them in the face with a baseball bat.

If you notice, all of these are things that would be very easy to go out and do right now if it possessed you. whereas other computer games involve fantastical methods to dispose of the enemy, (I'm guessing none of you own your own army or alien weaponry).

This wont change anything. The parent are patheic attention seekers. Blaming a game that dont even sell good. Choose a more famous game if you want attention....

Probably not attention seekers. More like seeking a reason as to why their child was killed and finding something to blame it on, rather then chalking it down to just a random killing.

 

[tangaloomababe]

Speaking from a parents point of view (mothers are worse) I so loath violent computer games. For years I would not allow my son to have these games and this worked fine until he started work and could buy them himself. He dosn't seem to be attracted to the very graphic violent games but is somewhat obsessed with World of Warcraft at the moment, I would like to think its a passing phase but I have my doubts. Luckily he dosnt have alot of time to indulge in playing it so I am somewhat relieved.

I do not see the need for this graphic style of game play and have never liked any game that has violence in it, I prefer a nice thinking game the likes of Myst and its decendents.

 

[Rawled Demha]

its true that it wont change anything. the legislations looks at one of the symptoms of the violence in modern society, not the cause. if you just deal with symptoms, there will be little if any improvement. we must look at why people like to buy these games.

and further to the standard - "if everyone plays a certain game does that mean everyone becomes killers? no" reply to cases such as these, that is as big (and inaccurate) a generalisation as the media and government likes to make - of course it doesnt cause eceryone to become a killer, but the similarities in some of the killings to the games in undeniable. i refer you to a BOY in leicestershire who killed a FRIEND in imitation of a part in manhunt 1- the guy used a hook to gut his friend, very like that done in the game...how can anyone deny that the game influenced his murder? it may have been that the poor guy was doomed, and the game only influenced the way he went, but it STILL DID HAVE AN INFLUENCE.

if in doubt, you could turn around and say - look, theres a guy who smoked from under 16, and he never got cancer, or he eventually gave it up, so you should allow under 16s to smoke. or else are you saying that everyone who smoked while under 16 will develop cancer, or never be able to kick the habit?

the legislation is simply the government appeasing the voters; propaganda, telling us that they are doing something to combat violent crime in our country. i think, however, most of us doubt it'll be effective

 

[dustinzgirl]

Oh for pity's sakes.

Art, books, movies...ect do not make a person violent.

The person's perception does, and the person's inability to seperate fact from fiction.

I mean, seriously, if I read Heather Has Two Mommies with my daughter, I don't think she will turn into a lesbian.

If I watch Scarface I'm not going to turn into a columbian drug lord.

If I collect Robert Sheer (great artist) I'm not going to turn into a promiscuous person.


Influence, perhaps, but the real problem is a lack of personal responsibility. I hate the way the media and society place blame.

This is NOT a game marketed for kids. It is a game marketed towards the high amount of 25-40 year old gamers. No, my kids do not play this game, its too violent. My man does. I don't, Manhunter is too hard and violent.

"He played video games and then shot someone" It must be the video games fault.

Excuses are like [fill in the blanks] everyone's got one.

Now, lets accept that any form of art can cause someone to become violent. Then why, prior to our multi-media lives, were people---yes, even young children---violent????????? The incidences of violence have increased, but in proportion to the world population, not in proportion to technological advances or artistic creations.

I wonder what excuses they used then.

Now, I think it is the family's responsibility to teach thier children write from wrong, fiction from reality, empathy from violence. People who don't spend time watching what thier kids are doing online and as games and explaining what a game/fiction is are just lazy.

Games are not reality. They are games. Censorship is stupid.

And is anyone besides me old enough to remember when Dungeons and Dragons was 'censored'

Remember what they told us, that it would invite evil and insanity and cause us to kill people and ourselves?

(from Straight Talk on Dungeons and Dragons btw, I hate this person, she's an idiot but this is fact

1. The "Freeway Killer," Vernon Butts, who committed suicide in his cell in 1987 while being held as a suspect in a string of murders was an avid D&D player.4
2. D&D player (14 years old) commits suicide by hanging, 1979, name withheld by parents' request.
3. D&D player (17 years old) Michael Dempsey, Lynnwood, WA. suicide by gunshot wound to the head, 5/19/81. Witnesses saw him trying to summon up D&D demons just minutes before his death.
4. D&D player (? years old) Steve Loyacano, Castle Rock, CO., suicide by carbon monoxide poisoning, 10/14/82. Police report satanic writings and a suicide note liked the death to D&D.
5. D&D player (21 years old) Timothy Grice, Lafayette, CO., suicide by shotgun blast, 1/17/83. Detective reports noted, "D&D became a reality. He thought he was not constrained to this life, but could leave [it] and return because of the game."
6. D&D player (18 years old) Harold T. Collins, Marion, OH., suicide by hanging, 4/29/83. Collins was noted to be "possessed" by D&D as if he were living the game.
7. D&D player (16 years old) Daniel Erwin, Lafayette, CO., murder by brother's shotgun blast to head, 11/2/84 (right after Halloween). Death was apparently the result of a death pact as part of the game.
8. D&D player (12 years old) Steve Erwin (see above) suicide by gunshot, 11/2/84. Detective report: "No doubt D&D cost them their lives."5
9. D&D player (no age given) Joseph Malin, Salt Lake City, UT., pled guilty to first degree murder 3/2/88 and was sentenced to life in prison. He killed a 13 years old girl while acting out the fantasy-role game. The girl had been raped, her throat cut, and she had been stabbed twice in the chest. Police said his "violent urges were fed by 'extreme involvement in the fantasy role-playing game Dungeons and Dragons.'"6
10. D&D player (14 years old) Sean Sellers was convicted of killing his parents and a convenience store clerk in Greeley, Oklahoma (1/11/87). He is the youngest inmate of death row in the country as of this writing (22 now). His involvement in hard-core Satanism began with D&D, according to his own testimony. Praise the Lord, he is now a Born Again Christian!7
11. D&D player (14 years old) Tom Sullivan, Jr. got into Satanism and ended up stabbing his mother to death, arranging a ritual circle (from D&D) in the middle of the living room floor and lit a fire in its midst. Fortunately, his dad and little brother were awakened by a smoke detector; but by then, Tom, Jr. had slashed his wrists and throat with his Boy Scout knife and died in the snow in a neighbor's yard.(1/19/88, Amarillo, TX.)8

SO WHY STOP AT GAMES???

BETTER CENSOR ALL DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS TOO!!!! Not to mention, religion, pornography, political writing, and hell, while we are at it lets just restrict adult thinking all together.

 

[Lith]

How does banning one game in ten years equate to banning anything the authorities find offensive? The issue with this game is more that there are no redeeming qualities to it- the entirety of the game is killing, graphically, ecstatically, the sort of game basically that won't appeal to much of anyone except those who enjoy fantasizing about killing to an unhealthy degree.

Anyway, I don't think censorship has to be an all-or-nothing sort of thing. Banning one game in ten years is not the same as repressing the people on a regular basis, nor is it at all likely that it will lead to it.

 

[Aegon the Unworthy]

I agree with Lith. Sometimes an industry just needs to be put on notice. Im not saying Im not for free speech and whatnot. There just needs to be some responsibility taken at the same time. I have not played the game so I couldnt tell you if it has any redeeming values and can only speak in general. In the US there is a rating system in place for video games called ERSB, is that not in the UK? I think merely giving it a gratuitous violence label would suffice but in lieu of other forms of control banning is acceptable.

I know what games my kid is playing. I know what shows he watches. I dont need a parental crutch that banning is. I do not know however what other parents are doing with their children, nor what he may be exposed to in other homes. Its not violent video games that cause kids to do violent things....its bad parenting coupled with violent video games (and other mass media influences) that cause some problems. Heck bad parenting is at the root of most everything but we cant test for that.

 

[Quokka]

I think people will gravitate towards what ever appeals to them, if they're in a place of anger, depression etc they'll look for expressions of that. I mean music and movies have been coping this for decades and books for centuries.

It's both a touch funny and sad that the mediums change but the excuses don't. Though there's nothing funny about the acts themselves.

There's been lots and lots of studies done, most contradicting the one that came before. In the example suggested by Scalem X I'd guess (but can't back it up) that it would actually show that those who had played the violent video games were more likely to answer with agressive responses if questioned soon after, but I still doubt that it would translate into more acts of aggression by those people or that the results would hold up when tested after a period of time when the choice of games wasnt controlled. Half of the results might well come from restricting the other group from the violent games.

I suppose the other side of the coin is that if you tell people something often enough it does have an effect, advertising and propaganda do work to affect general trends, if not always in a predictable way with an individual.

Sorry this is a bit of a round about post but I think some attempt at censorship should be made even if it isn't always effective. As in the case of Manhunt2 it will probably stop some people from playing it but it will also make it that much more attractive to others who will get a kick out of playing an 'illegal' game.

Something that I think is reflected with comments here is that the best censorship is that done by the parents/family. They certainly need some support from the government (and in an ideal situation the industries themselves) but as with most things if the family stucture isn't able to provide that support then outside intervention often has a really hard time making an impact.

 

[Tabasco]

Back before video games were out, I remember my cousin almost breaking my knee while applying the figure 4 leglock lol. Me and my cousin damn near killed a friend of ours on roller skates by ramming him into a parked car. How many kids with a pillowcase tied around their necks almost died from impact after watching Superman? Wrestling, roller derby, movies... they were all affecting behavior long before video games.

As for Manhunt 2, I think the game went a bit overboard. I don't think it's that big a deal what happened. It probably was too violent if it trumped the original. If you really reaped in life what you sowed in video games, every single guy would be playing Leisure Suit Larry.

 

[mosaix]

Obviously some more research needs to be done.

Kids are becoming more violent and at an earlier age.

 

[Barristan]

As a Father of 3 (3,11 and 13) I do find myself veering to the cause of banning the games that go too far.

However, as an avid gamer of consoles and Roleplaying for the last 20 something years, I can see there is no harm in a lot of the material. Its a tough call, but there are so many influences in someones life, it is impossible to point a finger.

Some people just seem to be born with the capacity to inflict harm, children more so because they dont always understand the consequences of their actions, but this changes as they grow. Its so hard, and as a parent your gut reaction is to lash out and condemn anything that "appears" to be the cause.

If Manhunt 2 was that bad, then why did the censors let it through? If the game had an age rating, why was it given to someone underage? The parents and the shops are the only 2 stages of defence, before the product gets to the child.

I think that as consumers and parents we should be responsible for our childs upbringing.

 

[Lith]

Well, it's been rated AO over here, which isn't technically a banning but Sony and Nintendo don't want to sell AO games (though I don't see how they could really stop it).

I don't know that kids are any more violent than they ever were. I think we just hear about it more. And perhaps the outlets for violent tendencies have changed. I don't see so many kids with BB guns as I used to. And my grandfather and his friends used to spend their free time throwing ROCKS at each other. All I've noticed is that some have NO attention-span or discipline, which I blame more on sugar and television.

I agree the parents have the most responsibility, but I think we all bear a little responsibility for making sure kids turn out decent. That's just part of being a society, and making sure kids don't end up too messed-up by their parents.

 

[Joel007]

Heh, i spent my computer-free childhood days hitting my brother with staves, collecting and throwing knives, fashioning weaponry from anything around, and once building a thorn fortress complete with booby traps.
I'd say that violence is a natural tendancy for growing lad
Now controlling and focussing the physical nature into something constructive, there's the key.