backtop

Print 63 comment(s) - last by oTAL.. on Jun 21 at 2:56 PM

Manhunt 2's gratuitous violence gets it banned in the UK
Rockstar's "Manhunt 2" banned in the UK for "sustained and cumulative casual sadism"

The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), a body responsible for the rating and classification of video games and other media, said that it has rejected the PlayStation 2 and Wii versions of Rockstar Games’ Manhunt 2. The classification of Manhunt 2 means that the game may not be legally distributed or sold in the UK.

BBFC director David Cooke said in a statement, “Rejecting a work is a very serious action and one which we do not take lightly. Where possible we try to consider cuts or, in the case of games, modifications which remove the material which contravenes the Board's published Guidelines. In the case of Manhunt 2 this has not been possible.”

“Manhunt 2 is distinguishable from recent high-end video games by its unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone in an overall game context which constantly encourages visceral killing with exceptionally little alleviation or distancing. There is sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed, and encouraged, in the game,” Cooke continued.

He adds, “Against this background, the Board's carefully considered view is that to issue a certificate to Manhunt 2, on either platform, would involve a range of unjustifiable harm risks, to both adults and minors, within the terms of the Video Recordings Act, and accordingly that its availability, even if statutorily confined to adults, would be unacceptable to the public.”

The BBFC’s decision sets a precedent for all other ratings boards. Manhunt 2 may face the same decision in other territories.

An official response issued by Rockstar Games reads, “We are disappointed with the recent decision by the British Board of Film Classification to refuse classification of Manhunt 2. While we respect the authority of the classification board and will abide by the rules, we emphatically disagree with this particular decision.”

“We respect those who have different opinions about the horror genre and video games as a whole, but we hope they will also consider the opinions of the adult gamers for whom this product is intended. We believe all products should be rated to allow the public to make informed choices about the media and art they wish to consume. The stories in modern video games are as diverse as the stories in books, film and television. The adult consumers who would play this game fully understand that it is fictional interactive entertainment and nothing more,” said the Rockstar Games statement.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Violence in film vs. games
By borismkv on 6/19/2007 6:24:05 PM , Rating: 2
For me, watching a particularly graphic full motion movie (Pan's Labrinth for example) is very much more disturbing than, say, watching a graphic cartoon or playing a game. I lump the last two together because they are more similar. Violence in games is very obviously not real. As close as they try to make it, video game violence cannot yet match the detail found in many popular horror movies. I doubt it ever really will. I'm also very curious about how people can equate moving a mouse around and pushing keys on a keyboard can "train" someone to commit acts of violence. I don't find myself getting angry or imagining killing someone. I think the vast majority of gamers have that disconnect in their minds between game and reality.




RE: Violence in film vs. games
By EntreHoras on 6/19/2007 11:27:55 PM , Rating: 2
True story: I learned how to make donuts with my car playing GTA3. So maybe anyone can be trained to do something just playing video games.

I think that the total ban of a video game is not the best answer, but every country has the system that fits best it's needs.


RE: Violence in film vs. games
By Rockjock51 on 6/20/2007 3:08:11 AM , Rating: 2
You didn't know how to do the real life equivalent of holding down the right trigger and holding the stick to the left in real life till you did it in GTA? What could you have possibly learned in that experience? Push the gas pedal and turn.. this isn't common sense?


RE: Violence in film vs. games
By EntreHoras on 6/20/2007 10:34:59 AM , Rating: 5
This is not about the keys to push in the joystick; it's about timing, mechanics and the self assurance that you can do it.

Another true story: about a month ago, I saw a car chase in the news, and the runaway driver was driving like he was playing GTA. The chase ended when the guy, driving trough the walk side, hits a pole. I imagine he was expecting the pole only causes minor damages to a car as in the game.


RE: Violence in film vs. games
By oTAL (blog) on 6/21/2007 2:54:30 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I think the vast majority of gamers have that disconnect in their minds between game and reality.


I believe the vast minority NOT included in your quote might be justification enough.


RE: Violence in film vs. games
By oTAL (blog) on 6/21/2007 2:56:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think the vast majority of gamers have that disconnect in their minds between game and reality.


I believe the vast minority NOT included in your quote might be justification enough for the ban.


Just who are they protecting?
By Hakuryu on 6/19/2007 6:41:47 PM , Rating: 5
Would any mature (rating) customer pick up a copy of Manhunt 2 and think "Wow, this looks good. I bet I run around and pet bunnies!"? I bet anyone seeing the box and reading it could tell just what kind of game it is.

So are they protecting the adults that could buy this game? Do British people see extended violence and all of sudden desire an Empire built on the blood of it's victims again? Perhaps British adults are a bit unstable and violence like this game delivers could turn them into murdering monsters?

Maybe they are protecting their children? Do British stores sell Mature stuff to minors? Do British parents not care what their children are playing and buy any game without even looking at it?

They really act like they are doing a favor for the public, but I bet the only one that profits from this is the council members that decided on this.... must be close to election time.

Not knocking the British, I just find censorship to be a bad thing, no matter what the content. This is a bad precedent that might affect more games in the future, til the Sims 5 is banned because you can play-fight. Sure that's a bit preposterous, but who's to say what will be censored once the ball gets rolling?




By lemonadesoda on 6/19/2007 7:09:03 PM , Rating: 1
Censorship is a good thing. But it depends on where you draw the line.

If anyone here thinks that snuff videos, or reality-tv kiddie rape, or video footage of desperate people having their limbs chopped off for money, is a good thing, then please leave the room.


RE: Just who are they protecting?
By Munkles on 6/19/2007 7:15:33 PM , Rating: 3
Hakuryu,

I would agree that censorship is most deffinetley a bad thing, but I find your comments about British stores and parents quite alarming. As a born and raised American gamer, I find the lack of AMERICAN PARENTAL involvement to be wholey lacking. It should NOT be the job of the government to censor this because the parents should be.

Do I like the Manhunt game series... no not really, but I dont see any reason that the government should be the reason people in UK arent playing it. Parents should be.

Ive seen dozens of parents, aunts, uncles, and grandparents buy GTA3/SA for their 6-10 y/o son or daughter because they just wanted to shut them up.

I understand WHY the council is trying to censor this game, but that doesnt mean they should be allowed to. The council is trying to do what parents all over are failing to do; sadly this little thing will ultimately mean nothing in terms of saving the minds of their youth. It will only hope to delay it slightly.

I sure wish more men would step up to teach thier kids right from wrong, and teach their boys how to be MEN not just... older boys.


By ChristopherO on 6/19/2007 10:55:09 PM , Rating: 4
I'm a fan of England, I've enjoyed my visits, but with the onset of advanced technology they have really gone off the deep end.

In London alone there is something like 2 people per state-run surveillance camera (Drudge had articles on that about a year ago I think). I just can't imagine living in a city where the police would litter the landscape with cameras and the populace would think that is a good thing.

Generally speaking, I think a government crosses the line when it protects people from themselves. It is fine to protect people from others, but never their own choices unless the individual is mentally ill (which by definition is rare, and not an affliction of an entire populace).

I think this is part of a larger problem faced by English society. I wonder when they'll wake up some day and wonder, "How the heck did this happen?"

Personally I think the real solution is to treat games/movies like tobacco. Stores that sell to minors can get into significant trouble, fines, and lose their license -- I think the current system here in the US is pretty much unenforceable. Also, if stores started carding everyone buying games, perhaps clueless adults might get it through their head that maybe the content is an unsuitable birthday gift for little Timmy. Or, if you really wanted to get tough, treat it like pseudoephedrine, force consumers to provide their names, addresses, and a copy of a valid state ID. I don’t support censorship, but I’m fine slowing down the purchasing process and making people think. There has really got to be a happy medium.


They came...
By UltimateDeath on 6/20/2007 4:04:54 AM , Rating: 3
First they came for the video games, and I said nothing for I did not play video games.
Then they came for the media, and I said nothing for I did not care for the media.
Then they came for the political activists, and I said nothing for I was not an activist.
Then they came for my words, and I said nothing for I had nothing left to say.




RE: They came...
By RogueSpear on 6/20/2007 1:08:26 PM , Rating: 1
Ripping off a quote from a WWII era Pastor regarding the wholesale slaughter of Jews and others, over video games, is IMO poor taste. To each his own, but I felt compelled to comment.


who cares
By atticu5 on 6/20/2007 4:50:30 AM , Rating: 2
well, we've got the first amendment but for any of you that dont really know anything about the law, or at least less than me, the 1st amendment comes with restrictions, those restrictions are in place to keep the government from banning just any old thing, but for this game i seriously couldn't care less.

games like that are the kind of stuff that i would never buy and i think give games the bad rep so many people give them and i dont think there would be a problem if they just banished. i am a gamer so when i say games like that i mean games where there is gratuitous violence and you get to "enjoy" killing things in a realistic environment in all the different ways your psychopathic mind has always dreamed of.

no taht im done with that rant, in principle i don't agree with the ban on this game but in practicality i understand. in governments like the US, and probably UK but im not sure, the only way to ban something is if it is deemed obscene, which means that a majority of people think it is inappropriate, such as child pornography. the mob mentality arguement against this doesnt work because all democracy really is is a fancy form of it, majority rules, its that simple. of course in the US there are laws to protect the minority view but thats a flame war for some other time




RE: who cares
By benjipwns on 6/20/2007 11:57:58 AM , Rating: 2
Of course, those First Amendment restrictions were put in place by the state after the fact.

They are in effect the state overwriting the powers granted to it by the people and saying "actually, we prefer this to be our power." Nobody complained because it was protecting "the children" and now instead of the First Amendment stating explicitly that the state cannot abridge freedom of speech, everyone has been taught that it really means "the government cannot abridge freedom of speech, except when it wants to."


By Hoser McMoose on 6/19/2007 6:08:58 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if there is any evidence, accurate or otherwise, that depictions of very violent and brutal killing are somewhat worse than depictions of just casually mowing people down with a machine gun? I really don't know, honest question here.

In all I guess this comes down to a question of where you draw the line. I think everyone agrees that there need to be SOME lines need to be draw. I really hate to bring it up as an example because it's so extreme, but a game where the goal was to molest children would pretty universally be seen as being on the wrong side of the line. But where do others fall? At what point does the content of the game become so morally objectionable that it should be banned?

I've never been a big fan of censorship in any form, but if they are going to censor any game then this is probably the one to do it with. Certainly it makes MUCH more sense, to me at least, to censor based on extreme violence rather then bits of sex and nudity.




By dubldwn on 6/19/2007 6:42:02 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
At what point does the content of the game become so morally objectionable that it should be banned?

Never. If there are no children involved, then there should be no limit to what’s depicted in a game (including molested children breaks other laws). These products are for adults. Children are not part of the discussion. The "review boards" need to keep their morals to themselves.


goddamn new labour
By colonelclaw on 6/20/2007 1:06:55 PM , Rating: 3
just when i thought it wasn't possible to hate tony blair and new labour any more...

tell you what politicians, i think i will decide what to watch play read etc, not you.




By hellokeith on 6/19/2007 5:59:02 PM , Rating: 2
If you look at one of the Saw or Hostel movies, heck even Sin City, they are very violent with graphic depictions of bloody dismemberment and death.

So the only thing I can think of is that since video games require interactivity - the player must initiate these gruesome actvities - that society worries that initiation could translate into real-world behavior.

I wonder how strict is enforcement of selling mature games in the UK.

I also wonder, what if the game was an historical account of some Roman siege where the soldiers went in and massacared the whole village including women and children, would that also pass the boundary of worrisome interactive violence?




Zombies
By therealnickdanger on 6/19/2007 6:08:07 PM , Rating: 2
Just change all the humans into zombies and turn the blood green. It worked for Carmageddon. While we're at it, let's give the UK this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gNqiSkd1M6k
(old, but still funny)




So....
By daftrok on 6/19/2007 7:41:03 PM , Rating: 2
So Grand Theft Auto, God of War, Condemned, Resistance, Halo, FEAR, etc. DON'T show that much violence? Fucking dumbasses...




censorship increases sales.
By rtk on 6/19/2007 7:46:07 PM , Rating: 2
If history has taught us anything, it's that in a free society, as soon as someone condemns a work it instantly gains credibility.

Rockstar gets to use "banned in the UK!" in it's marketing, and the rest of the world knows it's at least worth a rental.

The story says UK, not EU, so it's safe to say it'll be almost as popular in Britain as anywhere else.




nanny state strikes again
By otispunkmeyer on 6/20/2007 5:32:20 AM , Rating: 2
need i say anymore

we're monitored constantly by CCTV, you cant say anything remotely offensive to anyone at all ever, health and safety is so zealous it actually stops you doing anywork at all and increases the cost of doing work as well.

example : top gear - cars for £100. the idea was to smash them into walls at 30MPH. leading crash experts said as long as a seatbelt and helmet was worn, thered be nothing to worry about.

health a safety nut job wasnt convinced, after all he knows more than the experts at volvo. so alot of money and time were spent removing items from the cars, relocating petrol tanks and fitting other saftey devices.

the result was a stunt that would of cost the price of 3 small baddly made brick walls actually ended up costing thousands of £'s. Jeremy clarkson even offered to stage the stunt in his back garden, and hire the film crew out and pay them all....but no.

and now, slowly, things aired on tv and radio are being reigned in... thank god for channel 4, perhaps the only media group willing to push the boundries...they showed how to kill and skin rabbits the other nite, it was great.

same with films, and now gradually video games.

eventually every piece of media you can be exposed to will be devoid of violence, guns, drugs, sex, nudity, jackie chan running around saying "whats up ma nigger", bruce shouting profanities every 2 seconds, twisted mind games... the lot.

only nice films about fluffy bunnies and women in bee keeper hats shall be allowed.

it'll get even worse, if blair signs away a big chunk of britains political power to that WENCH from germany. the last thing we want is to be ruled by them....not after 2 world wars. the veterans who fought for our freedom from the Nazi's must be turning in their graves at the prospect of blair undoing all their hard work.




nanny state strikes again
By otispunkmeyer on 6/20/2007 5:32:26 AM , Rating: 2
need i say anymore

we're monitored constantly by CCTV, you cant say anything remotely offensive to anyone at all ever, health and safety is so zealous it actually stops you doing anywork at all and increases the cost of doing work as well.

example : top gear - cars for £100. the idea was to smash them into walls at 30MPH. leading crash experts said as long as a seatbelt and helmet was worn, thered be nothing to worry about.

health a safety nut job wasnt convinced, after all he knows more than the experts at volvo. so alot of money and time were spent removing items from the cars, relocating petrol tanks and fitting other saftey devices.

the result was a stunt that would of cost the price of 3 small baddly made brick walls actually ended up costing thousands of £'s. Jeremy clarkson even offered to stage the stunt in his back garden, and hire the film crew out and pay them all....but no.

and now, slowly, things aired on tv and radio are being reigned in... thank god for channel 4, perhaps the only media group willing to push the boundries...they showed how to kill and skin rabbits the other nite, it was great.

same with films, and now gradually video games.

eventually every piece of media you can be exposed to will be devoid of violence, guns, drugs, sex, nudity, jackie chan running around saying "whats up ma nigger", bruce shouting profanities every 2 seconds, twisted mind games... the lot.

only nice films about fluffy bunnies and women in bee keeper hats shall be allowed.

it'll get even worse, if blair signs away a big chunk of britains political power to that WENCH from germany. the last thing we want is to be ruled by them....not after 2 world wars. the veterans who fought for our freedom from the Nazi's must be turning in their graves at the prospect of blair undoing all their hard work.




......
By Jcruiser89 on 6/21/2007 12:54:13 PM , Rating: 2
How are games like this different than movies? Saw, Hostile, Child's play, Friday the 13th...... All these games are just interactive horror flicks. The graphical nature of these movies are worse than any game I have yet to play..... But I don't live over there so it really doesn't bother me. And if someone really wanted the game they could just mod their system and import it........




Saw it today at Virgin stores
By fsardis on 6/19/2007 7:02:28 PM , Rating: 1
The game is on the shelves. i saw it today at Virgin stores. No idea how long it will stay there but those who are interested can get it while there is time.
it was a PS2 version by the way. as for the pc game im pretty sure one can download it the legal way from an international website or the illegal way from p2p.




nice
By GlassHouse69 on 6/20/2007 1:22:58 AM , Rating: 1
"God bless America! And no where else!"

I guess that applies here :)

I cant wait for the game. I am getting it just because of the visceral killing.

Too bad they didnt pump the graphics for pc. I would have liked to see it on that.




-1 to UK
By dubldwn on 6/19/07, Rating: 0
RE: -1 to UK
By fsardis on 6/19/07, Rating: -1
RE: -1 to UK
By dubldwn on 6/19/07, Rating: 0
Gotta love that first amendment
By ZimZum on 6/19/07, Rating: -1
RE: Gotta love that first amendment
By darkblueslider on 6/19/2007 6:42:55 PM , Rating: 5
Implying of course, That this is the case in the UK?
Well, we may not have the freedom of Expression, but we don't have the Patriot Act Either.

(And of course, this isn't the government, its a totally independent body.)

All the Americans are going to jump on their Constitutional rights. I'd just like to remind you that having such a 'Water-tight' constitution isn't always advantageous, for example:
Scientology is a recognised religion in the US, owing to the "Freedom of religion" Clause. Whereas, in the UK, we had the sense to refuse it any charitable status what-so-ever. Apologies, incidentally if anyone interprets this as country bashing, or a "My country is better than yours" post - its simply intending to weigh up some positive and negative aspects of points raised by other comments.

More on topic - This doesn't really bother me. I disagree completely that violent video games cause violent behaviour - But at the same time, the extent this game goes is totally unnecessary, and I don't think I would 'unban' it, if i was given a magic button to do so.


By hubajube on 6/19/2007 6:51:56 PM , Rating: 1
The Patriot Act more than likely won't be with us much longer. I'd be surprised if it was still around after the next election. Besides, we don't need the Patriot Act to trample on our own rights over here. "I can do bad by myself, I don't no help to starve to death. I can do that on my own."


RE: Gotta love that first amendment
By dubldwn on 6/19/2007 6:52:22 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
the extent this game goes is totally unnecessary

Then my recommendation to you would be to not buy it. Some of us find "totally unnecessary" violence amusing. Perhaps you wouldn't mind us making that decision ourselves?


RE: Gotta love that first amendment
By INeedCache on 6/19/2007 7:18:29 PM , Rating: 2
Some people find real violence amusing, too. Does that mean it's OK? Lots of people hide behind the First Amendment. If you have never read the entire U.S. Constituion, I suggest you do so. After that, tell me if you honestly believe the writers had this sort of thing in mind. They had no idea that people would become so twisted as to think this sort of thing is really entertainment. I believe if they could have envisioned this they would have made the proper adjustments in their wording.


RE: Gotta love that first amendment
By Munkles on 6/19/2007 7:38:38 PM , Rating: 4
INeedCache,

The problem is that its NOT some council, or the governments JOB to censor this kind of content. This kind of content should be filtered by the retailer, and again by the parents who will be buying it.

If the game is TRULY THAT BAD then the retailers should refuse to stock it, and make people find an alternate means to procure the game. My issue is not whether or not the content in this game is questionable, shakey, or outright bad, BUT rather my issue is that this is a path ANY modern government should not travel.

Legislating morality is NEVER a good idea. Give people freedom, and education to make the right choices; then let them.


By Hydrofirex on 6/19/2007 7:45:59 PM , Rating: 1
Thank you!

HfX


RE: Gotta love that first amendment
By INeedCache on 6/19/2007 10:33:26 PM , Rating: 2
What do mean that legislating morality is never a good idea? What do you think morlaity is? I suggest you look it up, because you really don't know. There are lots of laws already that deal with morality. Murder, rape, theft, incest, etc. all deal with morality. Are you saying these things should be left up to each individual to decide? I would not want to live in your world.


By nekobawt on 6/20/2007 11:12:06 AM , Rating: 2
Legislating morality is one thing; it's when you try to micromanage it that things get sticky.


RE: Gotta love that first amendment
By dubldwn on 6/20/2007 11:46:31 AM , Rating: 2
Murder, rape, theft, incest, etc. have nothing to do with Freedom of Expression or anything else that’s at issue here. They have nothing to do with my right to develop a video game with visceral violence, and they have nothing to do with my right to view the content. No one here is suggesting murder, rape, theft, incest, etc. are only wrong based on your particular view of morality. To puts those acts in the same context as playing a video game is absurd.


By RogueSpear on 6/20/2007 1:18:29 PM , Rating: 2
Ok so how about a video game that allows your player character to rape children? And in a very graphic and "show everything" way?

I'm all for freedoms, etc. and I think the video game industry is absolutely scape goat #1 for all of society's ills, but at some point you do need to draw a line. I am not saying that Manhunt 2 is where we draw the line. I've never played it or seen it played before, but from what I've read it does not seem to have reached that point (IMO). I DO believe that it should be illegal for anyone under 16 to be able to buy it. If a parent wants their kid to have it, let 'em have at it.

Elsewhere in the comments to this article some were discussing freedom of religion. Yes we do have that, but at the same time we don't allow people to sacrafice virgins or other such things. Nothing is absolute.


By INeedCache on 6/20/2007 7:25:57 PM , Rating: 2
I merely answered the assertion that morality shouldn't be legislated. It already is. Morals are simply ethics, right and wrong, if you will. Thus morality comes from morals. If your morals simply go along with the idea that everyone is free to express WHATEVER they choose to, so be it. But just so you know, many have morals that don't simply go along with the attitude that anything goes, no matter how disgusting and violent. And what is absurd is the denial that these types of games have no ill effects on people's actions and personalities.


RE: Gotta love that first amendment
By audiophi1e on 6/19/2007 11:16:27 PM , Rating: 3
Ultimately, the filter should be the parents, not retailers or anyone else.

Retailers? You've got to be kidding. They will stock whatever game sells the most--and if it happens to be Manhunt 2, you bet they will keep that game fully stocked.

Whereas I have never played this game or even seen any content from this game, I bet the game probably IS pretty violent. However, there's no way anyone can take choices away from people. Even the most unsightly movies at least get to be rated NC-17. On a more base level, there's even all sorts of porn the likes of which the common man couldn't even DREAM of (all sorts of fetishes)...there is no regulation of that, nor should there be.

What separates a violent game from any other base movie? Manhunt2 happens to be targeted to a mature audience--let them sell it.


By slunkius on 6/20/2007 3:00:46 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Ultimately, the filter should be the parents, not retailers or anyone else.


would you say that drugs should be legalised also, and if some kid hooks up, its his parents fault? guess you don't have children yet


RE: Gotta love that first amendment
By Hydrofirex on 6/19/07, Rating: 0
RE: Gotta love that first amendment
By poohbear on 6/19/2007 10:23:35 PM , Rating: 2
im all for freedom of expression, but study what psychology has to say about these things. Violent music and video games DO influence behavior, of that there is no doubt, the controversy begins when u discuss to what degree that influence is.

boxers listen to hardcore music before they fight cause it pumps em up. stressed people relax when they hear soothing music, the influence is definetly there and it goes both ways (aggravating people and calming people).


RE: Gotta love that first amendment
By Hydrofirex on 6/19/2007 10:38:18 PM , Rating: 1
Everything effects everything, and even the studies don't prove any link what-so-ever between crime or violence and 'violent' video games.

I don't recall Hitler, Stalin, or Darth Vader being big fan's of GWAR or Marilyn Manson. I don't think Charles Manson or Ghengis Kahn totally PAWND you're great grandma in F.E.A.R Combat or GTA 3.

Don't let humanity off so easily. It's not just that our hearts are corruptible, they are; worse is that there are those out there who are just going to do these things - regardless of the sunshine and cherry blossoms we surround them with. If someone can rape and murder little children, shoot up their school, or commit genocide it comes from more than just fiction.

HfX


RE: Gotta love that first amendment
By slunkius on 6/20/2007 3:18:30 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
If someone can rape and murder little children, shoot up their school, or commit genocide it comes from more than just fiction.


wouldn't you agree that nowadays these things happen more often than in good old days. And since you are not letting off humanity so easily, maybe you have ideas why this is happening?


RE: Gotta love that first amendment
By TSS on 6/20/2007 3:51:40 AM , Rating: 2
i would agree that more people are shooting other people because of they saw it in a game then say 20 years ago, since back then shooters didn't even exist. and you dont shoot people on the count of pac-man.

however, i would NOT agree that more people are dieing because of violent games. people where getting murdered back in the 50's when everything was strict, just for different reasons. now games are common so more people will snap because of them. ban all games, and you will see an increase in killings because of violent movies. HOWEVER you might not see an increase or decrease in the total people going nuts. personally with all the crap on TV today, more people would snap if games where banned then when not.

how so? because i'd rather see potential psycho's getting their thing off in a game then in real life. i play shooters for release, shooting all those blasted noobs that try to hurt me. i wish i could do that in real life like anybody but i can't, and rather then to let that frustration build up or get to me, i'd blast some kids away who think their better then em anyway (online play = competition however you look at it so).

so, wouldn't you agree that no matter where the violent influence comes from, even if from their own frustration of not beenig able to do something or as much as not beeing able to get a certain girl to like you, people likely to snap will infact, snap?


By EndPCNoise on 6/20/2007 5:37:55 AM , Rating: 2
TSS...

I just want to point out one thing...

Shooting crimes are not on the rise in the U.S. They have been on the decline for many years now.

Please check current FBI records where the actual statistics can be found.

John Stossel (name spelling?) and ABC news show 20/20 recently did a show on this common myth.

This is not a personal attack against you TSS. Just trying to dispel a common myth.


By AlmostExAMD on 6/20/2007 4:55:15 AM , Rating: 2
It happens more often because there is a great deal more people in this world and less space between each of us!

Also in my opinion it's because some people out there are too soft and instead of a good smack to teach discipline to kids they say" Don't do that", Yeah like kids really appreciate and understand those words true values!
The so called Good old days were just that because in my day the thought of getting the strap at home or the cane at school kept me on the good side!


RE: Gotta love that first amendment
By Samus on 6/20/2007 2:23:04 AM , Rating: 1
London has more camera's than any other city in the country. They tax when and where you drive. They have a terrible (relatively speaking) economy and property/cost of living is outrageous.

London is the biggest city in the UK.

His statements are all confirmed by the facts above. The citizens of the UK have LESS freedom than the United States gives its citizens.


RE: Gotta love that first amendment
By Proteusza on 6/20/2007 4:10:13 AM , Rating: 2
I have to kind of agree, I recently moved here, and I dont like the British government. They are totally ineffective - 14 year olds could do a better job. They claim to not have enough money for police (of all things!) but they tax us to death, spend millions on the congestion charge scheme, and tax us some more. Britain is in a rage about Tony Blair subjecting them to EU interference, but I have to say, I think the EU could do a better job!

Anyway, I dont support games or movies like this, so I wont buy it. Then again, I dont care if someone else does - I know they wont be any more likely to commit such acts of violence. if they enjoy it, let them play it.


RE: Gotta love that first amendment
By xsilver on 6/20/2007 4:40:16 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
- I know they wont be any more likely to commit such acts of violence. if they enjoy it,

and if they DO happen to hack someone to death after playing this game? what then?


RE: Gotta love that first amendment
By Proteusza on 6/20/2007 5:20:20 AM , Rating: 2
what if they hack someone to death without playing the game? oh wait that happens all the time.

there is no correlation, but its easy to see why people think there is. I play violent games, therefore I must be a violent person. Um no, logically correct but not necessarily true.

The Churches (Christian, Islamic and otherwise) have caused far more death, have ordered genocide, started wars, always over someone's ego. Look at the salman Rushdie issue - people being encouraged to kill themselves to kill him - where has a game ever told you to do that?


RE: Gotta love that first amendment
By xsilver on 6/20/2007 5:37:56 AM , Rating: 2
no, the problem is that there IS a correllation, but a very weak one.
dont get me wrong - I like these games too.
The problem is though if you take a random sample of 1000 people who dont play violent video games and compare them to 1000 people who do play violent video games, There is a very likely chance that the group who play will have a higher count of violence/murder/rape etc.
the problem is that the number may only be 5% - hardly earth shattering.
The evangalists then portray this number to be 40-60% which makes it sound like we should ban these games.
What this is a case of is people trying to cover their ass before they get sued.


By Proteusza on 6/20/2007 5:45:14 AM , Rating: 2
I disagree, there is none.

The chance you are going to commit violent crime is dictated by your background and your personality. What you do and what you enjoy is not going to influence that.

I suppose you might be right, in that there may be a very very weak correlation, but I think you would find that other factors influence is so strong, gaming wont matter. if you have the mindset of a mass murderer, hell Manhunt may let you live out your fantasies in a way that doesnt harm others.

I'm off to play some CSS, so that I can train to be a lethal killer. /sarcasm, I couldnt hit the broad side of a barn with a pellet gun, and CSS hasnt changed that.


RE: Gotta love that first amendment
By jeff834 on 6/20/2007 1:35:08 PM , Rating: 2
It is quite possible that some correlation exists, but you have to see it the right way. When you do a study that compares 1000 people who don't play violent video games to 1000 people that do to show that more of the game players are violent you don't consider that the correlation could be in the opposite direction. What I mean is that what part of the study determines whether those 1000 people who do play the games don't play those games because they are violent people already? Not to mention people are extremely complicated. You can't study one aspect of what a person enjoys to tell their whole personality. They like violent video games, but do they like comedy movies or horror movies? Harry Potter or Stephen King? Do they play puzzle and sim games just as much as violent games? These studies don't go into detail because they want them to be as sensationalist as possible. I for one will definitely be playing this game, and any other violent game I wish, but most of the time I'm so peaceful I literally wouldn't harm a fly. In 25 years I've never hit a person, never cheated on anything, I pay my taxes, etc., and I would venture to say that most people who play video games are like me. No one studies those people, they only study the crazies, and they never say anything about how they could have been (and most likely were) crazy with or without video games, movies, etc.

On a side note for whomever says more people are being killed or shot or hacked up or whatever now than in the past, have you even considered population? You can't look at sheer numbers and say "oh 1000 people were killed this year compared to the 500 in 1960". You have to consider what percentage of the whole those numbers are. If the population of the country doubles and murders double then there really wasnt an increase in violent behavior. As for shootings in the US, if you grew up in Compton or Camden or Newark, NJ do you think it matters what video games you played? I live in a town of around 100,000 people and we have a violent crime once every few years or so, and never once has that crime ever had anything to do with video games. People kill people because of real life reasons or possibly psychosis, and no matter how hard they try they will never show a true and real correlation between psychosis and media.

One more response to a comment about legislating morality. Murder, rape, theft, child abuse, etc are not illegal because they are immoral, they are illegal because they cause harm to people. As for incest, thats illegal because most of the time it involves abuse and even when it doesn't it produces offspring that generally have genetic defects, and most states in the US only have laws against incest with immediate family and first cousins, beyond that its up to you. Its not possible to legislate morality, as that is completely subjective. Many people find homosexuality immoral, but it isnt and never will be illegal. Some people find sex before marriage immoral, but its never going to be illegal, and it wasnt illegal even when a majority of the population thought it was immoral (specifically speaking of the US) I think Ive made my point.


RE: Gotta love that first amendment
By Samus on 6/20/2007 2:18:11 PM , Rating: 2
I'd like to see a study, any study you can find, that links video games to violence, murder, rape, etc.

It's like those morons in capitol hill that say Marijuana gives you cancer, which was dis-proven by a government-funder study by a research team that historically does not support legalization or use of marijuana.

Study:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...


RE: Gotta love that first amendment
By JoeBanana on 6/20/2007 5:30:30 AM , Rating: 2
It's true about the cameras. They are everywhere. But as long as they are used just for solving crimes it's fine. Like ip logs. As long as internet provider has them for solving serious crimes it's ok.

I am no expert but I know they have a bunch who went through manhunt and banned it. But think of it from the other end. If a company produced a dangerous toy country bans it. Different countries have different standards. And I think it has nothing to do with the freedom of expression which if u look it up, freedom index is very high in UK.

The economy could be better. But it's a developed country and developed countries economy is not advancing so much as the developing ones. (just look at Germany(who is bouncing back) and USA)I think that developed country should concentrate more on other things than economy after all people can have a decent living with minimum wage but are they happy... Are u happy with blood spilling, arm tearing, jaw braking games who are made with purpose on killing a man on the most cruel way? I am not.


RE: Gotta love that first amendment
By Samus on 6/20/2007 2:21:15 PM , Rating: 2
You're right, the quality of life is better in the UK statistically (thinking of a study I read recently that researched how happy couples are....sex and all that) that in the USA, but we are all far behind other countries such as Austria and Canada, who have had stable economies for quite some time (Canada has done remarkably in the past 20 years.)


By Polynikes on 6/20/2007 11:09:55 AM , Rating: 2
What's wrong with freedom of religion, as long as the "religions" don't hurt anyone? I think Scientology is just as retarded as you do, but that doesn't mean it should be "banned" from a charitable status. If people want to waste money by giving it to Scientologists, why stop them?

Therein lies the difference between our countries. We let people do things, even if they're stupid, on the basis of freedom more often than most if not all other countries. That's not to say we always do that, but... :P


By Misty Dingos on 6/21/2007 8:37:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
More on topic - This doesn't really bother me. I disagree completely that violent video games cause violent behaviour - But at the same time, the extent this game goes is totally unnecessary, and I don't think I would 'unban' it, if i was given a magic button to do so.


This is the part of your argument that bothers me. "This doesn't really bother me." So if an ultra violent video game is banned that doesn't bother you. Well let's take that further then. Perhaps there is an ultra violent film that won't get played in England I am sure that wouldn't bother you either. Or some music that had lyrics that a quasi-governmental board said were too violent or sexual for you to hear, I am sure that wouldn't bother you at all. Or when someone decides that you shouldn't read anything on the internet that might provoke you to become violent, well I am sure that wouldn't bother you at all either. And when people are arrested because they said or wrote something that might make someone violent then that wouldn't bother you either. What I am wondering is when something that your government does to its citizens will bother you?

I have made a few posts here about the freedoms or lack there of in England and I know that some of you out there just don't get it. But here it goes, when will the slope of diminishing freedoms BOTHER any of you.
quote:
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
B. Franklin


"I mean, if you wanna break down someone's door, why don't you start with AT&T, for God sakes? They make your amazing phone unusable as a phone!" -- Jon Stewart on Apple and the iPhone









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki