Video game violence

[Ghoststalker]

would you say that video games have become to violent in thier content?
Kids have gone out and killed people just for playing them? ie manhunt GTA San Andreas.
What are your opinions?

[Ghoststalker]

steady on i only asked the question because i have a persentation comming up on thursday and i am talking about video game violence just wanted some opinions.

[liquid_snake]

Games have obviously changed and developed considerably in recent years, and yes, I do think games have become more violent in the last, say, ten years. However, I do not think that they can motivate someone to go out and commit really violent attacks. I think games can be a scape goat sometimes for parents looking for something to blame for their children's behaviour.

I don't think it's helped by the likes of The Daily Mail etc. hyping up all this negativity surrounding games like Manhunt and GTA. As mooremc predicts, there are likely to be many more of these stories in tabloid papers what with the next generation now fully upon us.

Hopefully, most people will take all the negative press with a pinch of salt, only time will tell...

[jimbo_wardle]

In a sense i think that violent games can be a trigger for these events to happen. If a child or any person for that matter, who is obviously not of sound mind, plays these games but cannot make the disconnection between reality and entertainment then i can understand why these people would go out and commit such acts with a game being the catylist. These kinds of events have all happened before though with any type of popular entertianment of that generation. Its happened with video nasties in the 80's/90's, happened with cinema. One notable example would be Stanly Kubricks "A Clockwork Orange". Kubrick withdrew the film from the United Kingdom because of a copy cat killing of a tramp. I'm sure there are also events where people have read about characters in books and then gone out and reinacted such things.

However i think with videogames, more so now as we push closer to more emersive, photo real games, the lines between reality and fiction can become easiely blurred. I can fully appreciate how someone who is mentally unbalanced could play a game and then because they have seen events depicted on screen which they have been incontrol of, could then be provoked to commiting these actions in real life.

Do i think violent games should be band? I certainly don't. We have a pretty good age classification system in this country when it comes to visual and audio media which takes responcibility away from the companies that publish these materials and leaves it in the hands of the purchaser and the seller. At the end of the day, if you child is under the age of 18, they should not be playing such games as GTA, gears of War, manhunter etc etc. These items have an age rating for a reason. It is the responibility of the parent and the shop keeper to not let your kids have such things and not to sell 18+ items to anyone under that age.

However, i do also think that some publishers (ie rockstar) do have a habit of courting controversy to generate publicity. One reacent example being "Bully". Anyone who has played the game seems to be of the opinion that the acts commited in the game are not that violent. But with all the publicity the game recieved, which in all honsity rockstar could have avoided, it would be easy to think this was GTA with kids. The papers and politions jumped on this before checking what the content of the game was, but rockstar could have easily have avoided any hassle by making it clear what the game intailed and by not announcing it under the working title "bully". But why would they want to!after all any publicity is good publicity. They knew what the reaction would be to the game, and they knew full well it would increase there sales with out them having to bother with a full media campagin (did anyone notice any tv ads etc for it?). Its impossible to say whether this is right or wrong, afterall it is just playing on peoples fears that a game will turn there kids into killers, but having said that, people like the daily mail and Jack Thompson are just as guilty for suggesting these idea in the first place.

Videogames will recieve the flack for anything like this for a fair while to come, at least untill the next form of media comes along which is closer to reality than a playstation 3...

[FatTrucker]

Kids are socially conditioned very differently nowadays and can't help but be affected by popular culture and the media. The issue with any kind of content affecting vulnerable or young individuals social development is multi-faceted and relates to internal factors such as their physiology and home environment as well as external factors in terms of information they digest through entertainment and other forms of activity and interaction including their peer groups, opportunities, quality of parenting, the area in which they live and the quality of the education that they receive.
Much the same as factors that affect any other kind of social abnormality.

Games are simply sensationalised and pigeon holed in these cases because they are still widely regarded as media directly and solely marketed for children. While the industry publicly points to the age rating system, the fact is that due to (quite deliberate) irresponsible marketing, games still make an easy target as they are by and large marketed directly and indirectly to appeal to younger age groups. When this is properly addressed and resolved then any legitimacy will go out of the anti-games lobbies argument.

Its a bit like Fosters, marketing a new alcopop, pushing cool adverts, getting it featured in the National Press, quietly contacting the Daily Mail, the local MP etc, and advising them that kids are getting hold of this new brand and drinking underage because they think its cool, prompting a screaming article denouncing the product and describing in graphic detail how teens are going crazy for this product and what they are getting up to while off their heads with it, (ensuring maximum exposure to any teens that might have missed it).............and then making it available for sale in Toys R Us among the Sunny Delight and Fruit Shoots.

Then of course Fosters throw their hands in the air and point to the packaging that has a little icon in the corner forbidding under 18s to buy it.

It sounds ludicrous, yet its exactly what games publishers and retailers do every single day.

[Keefka]

I think we are well overdue people in this country recognising games as a serious medium and not one that is exclusive to children. Often parents will ignore ratings to either make life easier or because they don’t respect what content a game has in it. I think this problem will be around for as long as games but I do think it will lessen in the future.

As a generation grows older it will be one that remembers just what goes into a GTA and what makes Manhunt so fun. Hopefully these people will also have a degree of maturity by the time they have kids and know that they aren’t suitable for children. Sensationalist articles in papers are often devoid of anyone who knows the first thing about games or anyone with an iota of respect for them.

Of course games can affect behaviour in children and mentally unstable people, the real question is do they affect more than say a movie or book? We have ratings in this country for entertainment mediums and games are often over-looked by parents. They say they are the must have for kids and feel pressured to buy these items but I do wonder how many would step up to buy porn for their seven year old if it was this weeks "craze".

K.

[rumblecat]

However, i do also think that some publishers (ie rockstar) do have a habit of courting controversy to generate publicity. One reacent example being "Bully". Anyone who has played the game seems to be of the opinion that the acts commited in the game are not that violent. But with all the publicity the game recieved, which in all honsity rockstar could have avoided, it would be easy to think this was GTA with kids. The papers and politions jumped on this before checking what the content of the game was, but rockstar could have easily have avoided any hassle by making it clear what the game intailed and by not announcing it under the working title "bully". But why would they want to!after all any publicity is good publicity. They knew what the reaction would be to the game, and they knew full well it would increase there sales with out them having to bother with a full media campagin (did anyone notice any tv ads etc for it?). Its impossible to say whether this is right or wrong, afterall it is just playing on peoples fears that a game will turn there kids into killers, but having said that, people like the daily mail and Jack Thompson are just as guilty for suggesting these idea in the first place.

Just as guilty? Strange phrase- especially as I don't see much guilt on Rockstar's part. Sure, they don't mind a bit of controversy to boost sales- just as Elvis shaking his hips brought teens scurrying to the record stores in the 50s- but they'd made the content of the game pretty clear back in May 2005 at E3 -

This is the first game being developed by Rockstar Vancouver and it follows the story of a troublesome schoolboy in reform school as he tries to stand up to bullies, gets picked on by teachers, plays pranks, and even tries to get the girl. All of this takes place in the fictional Bullworth Academy.

Of course, it suits JT and the Daily Mail to ignore the facts and to peddle hysterical half-truths and supposition instead. Daily Mail even printed an article on Bully where they uncovered the shocking truth (!) and had a photo of the game next to it, showing a big lad picking on a small guy. Disgusting etc. Except they didn't bother to point out that the small guy was the hero of the game, and was being bullied himself. Hey, why let the facts get in the way of the good story.

Why should Rockstar have to explain themselves? They never promoted the game as a 'Columbine simulator'. They always stressed the humour. And in the run up to the game, there were plenty of game videos and previews available so that anyone who wanted to could clearly see what the game was about. Hell, even if for arguments sake they did court controversy- so what? Should they be held accountable for MPs like Keith Vaz who raise questions in the Houses of Parliament before checking his facts? No. And do we have a similar outcry when the spectre of bullying is featured in films, in literature, in TV (I mean, come on... Malcolm in the Middle features more bullying per square inch than any other show I've seen)- of course not.

As for the ridiculous Manhunt controversy of the killing of a teenage boy... the Mail happily ignored the fact that the police and the judge both denied any link between the game and murder, saying it was drug related. Oh, and the murderer didn't actually own the game...

So, yeah, as FatTrucker says, it's because videogames are primarily seen as being aimed at children, and the ratings in effect clearly don't work. I have to give a big 'so what' to that too- ratings should only ever be a guideline for consumers and parents. Despite the best attempts of the certain groups, there still has been a study made that directly links violent video games to violent behaviour in teens. But comparing it to pushing alcohol onto kids is a little spurious- alcohol has a confirmed physical effect on the human system.

...and by the way, Kubrick withdrew Clockwork Orange because of threats made on him, not because of any supposed copycat killings.

[jimbo_wardle]

However, i do also think that some publishers (ie rockstar) do have a habit of courting controversy to generate publicity. One reacent example being "Bully". Anyone who has played the game seems to be of the opinion that the acts commited in the game are not that violent. But with all the publicity the game recieved, which in all honsity rockstar could have avoided, it would be easy to think this was GTA with kids. The papers and politions jumped on this before checking what the content of the game was, but rockstar could have easily have avoided any hassle by making it clear what the game intailed and by not announcing it under the working title "bully". But why would they want to!after all any publicity is good publicity. They knew what the reaction would be to the game, and they knew full well it would increase there sales with out them having to bother with a full media campagin (did anyone notice any tv ads etc for it?). Its impossible to say whether this is right or wrong, afterall it is just playing on peoples fears that a game will turn there kids into killers, but having said that, people like the daily mail and Jack Thompson are just as guilty for suggesting these idea in the first place.

Just as guilty? Strange phrase- especially as I don't see much guilt on Rockstar's part. Sure, they don't mind a bit of controversy to boost sales- just as Elvis shaking his hips brought teens scurrying to the record stores in the 50s- but they'd made the content of the game pretty clear back in May 2005 at E3 -

This is the first game being developed by Rockstar Vancouver and it follows the story of a troublesome schoolboy in reform school as he tries to stand up to bullies, gets picked on by teachers, plays pranks, and even tries to get the girl. All of this takes place in the fictional Bullworth Academy.

Of course, it suits JT and the Daily Mail to ignore the facts and to peddle hysterical half-truths and supposition instead. Daily Mail even printed an article on Bully where they uncovered the shocking truth (!) and had a photo of the game next to it, showing a big lad picking on a small guy. Disgusting etc. Except they didn't bother to point out that the small guy was the hero of the game, and was being bullied himself. Hey, why let the facts get in the way of the good story.

Why should Rockstar have to explain themselves? They never promoted the game as a 'Columbine simulator'. They always stressed the humour. And in the run up to the game, there were plenty of game videos and previews available so that anyone who wanted to could clearly see what the game was about. Hell, even if for arguments sake they did court controversy- so what? Should they be held accountable for MPs like Keith Vaz who raise questions in the Houses of Parliament before checking his facts? No. And do we have a similar outcry when the spectre of bullying is featured in films, in literature, in TV (I mean, come on... Malcolm in the Middle features more bullying per square inch than any other show I've seen)- of course not.

As for the ridiculous Manhunt controversy of the killing of a teenage boy... the Mail happily ignored the fact that the police and the judge both denied any link between the game and murder, saying it was drug related. Oh, and the murderer didn't actually own the game...

So, yeah, as FatTrucker says, it's because videogames are primarily seen as being aimed at children, and the ratings in effect clearly don't work. I have to give a big 'so what' to that too- ratings should only ever be a guideline for consumers and parents. Despite the best attempts of the certain groups, there still has been a study made that directly links violent video games to violent behaviour in teens. But comparing it to pushing alcohol onto kids is a little spurious- alcohol has a confirmed physical effect on the human system.

...and by the way, Kubrick withdrew Clockwork Orange because of threats made on him, not because of any supposed copycat killings.

I'm not saying rockstar should be held accountable for there games, all I'm saying is they know full well how certain parts of the media are going to react to games like this and I don't think they object in anyway to it, after all what other way are you going to get yourself some free advertising in the houses of parliment and endless amout of coloum inches for nothing. Regards to the age rating system used, why should it only be a guideline exactly? If your 10 year old child want to watch 18+ pornography, would you decided that as a parent the 18 certificate is only a rough guide line and what harm could it do. Movies and Games are rated for a reason, in the past these ratings might have been to harsh on the content, but now the BBFC are pretty good at there job. Plus the fact games now carry BBFC ratings should suggest to parents "hang about this kids game has the same ago logo as the films i won't let little billy watch, maybe i shouldn't let him play generic killing game VII"

Good call on the kubrick thing though, i didn't actually know that

[rumblecat]

Don't get me wrong, I'm in favour of the classification system. And I also think the BBFC are doing a pretty good job of it nowadays. But I'm favour of the ratings remaining as guideline, and as advanced and descriptive the guidelines are, the better.

But if it's not just going to be a guideline, as you state, what is it exactly?

It's something that would then have to be enforced by a nanny state. Parents could be (far fetched, but run with it) prosecuted for allowing 14 year old Jimmy to watch a 15 movie.

And, no, if a parent picks up a hardcore porn film and sees it's an 18 (actually, it'd be R18 which is the BBFC guideline for explicit films, but anyhoo-) then they have the information at the fingertips to make a decision.

I guess that's my point, and we're probably singing from the same hymn sheet on this one, that despite all this fuss and terror over violent video games, the decision should rest with the parent or with the individual adult who has purchased their item, rather than seeing any need for stringent government regulation. But maybe that's a pipe dream, and it's blantatly obvious that a lot of parents either don't know or don't care what their kids are watching or playing.

I agree that using the some certficates over a broad spectrum of medias allows for greater knowledge of the product, but I also think video games get a bad rap in this department. Your 12 year old may struggle to buy or be allowed to play an adult rated game, but he can still easily walk into a bookshop and buy American Psycho (which, incidentally, I think is a hilarious book but that's beside the point).

[jimbo_wardle]

Don't get me wrong, I'm in favour of the classification system. And I also think the BBFC are doing a pretty good job of it nowadays. But I'm favour of the ratings remaining as guideline, and as advanced and descriptive the guidelines are, the better.

But if it's not just going to be a guideline, as you state, what is it exactly?

It's something that would then have to be enforced by a nanny state. Parents could be (far fetched, but run with it) prosecuted for allowing 14 year old Jimmy to watch a 15 movie.

And, no, if a parent picks up a hardcore porn film and sees it's an 18 (actually, it'd be R18 which is the BBFC guideline for explicit films, but anyhoo-) then they have the information at the fingertips to make a decision.

I guess that's my point, and we're probably singing from the same hymn sheet on this one, that despite all this fuss and terror over violent video games, the decision should rest with the parent or with the individual adult who has purchased their item, rather than seeing any need for stringent government regulation. But maybe that's a pipe dream, and it's blantatly obvious that a lot of parents either don't know or don't care what their kids are watching or playing.

I agree that using the some certficates over a broad spectrum of medias allows for greater knowledge of the product, but I also think video games get a bad rap in this department. Your 12 year old may struggle to buy or be allowed to play an adult rated game, but he can still easily walk into a bookshop and buy American Psycho (which, incidentally, I think is a hilarious book but that's beside the point).

I agree i think we are both making the same point in different ways. In most instences i don't agree with anything that turns us into a nanny state but if some parent or shop owner is prosicuted for selling/allowing there child to purchase an 18 game (i keep using 18 as the example cause i think 15 is a little more vague) to make people think twice about these things i can't see that as a bad thing. It is a very hard thing to judge though. I remember things that would recieve an 18 when i was younger (and thus not allowed to watch) would probably only get a 15 or even a 12a rating, so i guess it is a sign of the times.

On a different note, if any 12 yr old can manage to get through american psycho then they are obviously mentaly unbalanced in the first place that is the only book that i've never managed to finish.

[FatTrucker]

So, yeah, as FatTrucker says, it's because videogames are primarily seen as being aimed at children, and the ratings in effect clearly don't work. I have to give a big 'so what' to that too- ratings should only ever be a guideline for consumers and parents. Despite the best attempts of the certain groups, there still has been a study made that directly links violent video games to violent behaviour in teens. But comparing it to pushing alcohol onto kids is a little spurious- alcohol has a confirmed physical effect on the human system.

I was making the point about the marketing issues surrounding the games. Its nothing like pushing alcohol, the two things aren't remotely related, I simply wanted to give a fictional alternative to highlight the dubious methods used to market games and relate it to a product that is already established as 'for adults'. Anything would have done......I just chose beer.

[ScotsWahey]

I wonder how many times this has been covered.

[Banjo]

I wonder how many times this has been covered.

4 or five times at least, I'm sure.

[Bob Syko]

I'm shallow, if it wasn't for the violence in games I wouldn't buy them.

Also, they are a lot of long posts and some hardcore quoting action.

[dw2k6]

im doomed to never get heard because my posts aren't pages long.