Games & Gore WARNING: Created With The Intention Of Discussing Game Related Violence

RopeDrink

FOR 18+ ONLY.

For the record, that is someones recording of about 85% of the kills possible to perform in the game Manhunt (for those who haven't played it).

Now, having watched that, I feel in no way compelled to go out on a killing spree, nor gained any desire to use aftero mentioned kill scenes as a reason to plead insanity if I should wind up in court for murder (or any violent act, for that matter) and blame it on the game. However, there is an article I am aware of that discussed a case before where a bloke (around the 15+ age mark) had played Manhunt and then decided to 'perform' these stealth kills (or try to, at least) on other people. The end result was that he murdered a friend, (I think) and ended up imprisoned.

I had read the article a long time ago (after having purchased Manhunt and went looking for the latest patches) and found it interesting, albeit non-suprising. This whole 'The Movie / Game / Book / Show made me do it' malarchy seems to continue around various parts of the globe, with the latest World Of Warcraft incident being one of the latest to come to mind where a bloke went off and killed his friend after lending him a sword 'IN GAME' which the friend then later refused to return (or something to that effect).

I remember, also, when our resident show 'Prime Time' dedicated one of their showings to the whole 'Game Violence' debate where they discussed entirely outlawing the sale of violent games (using Manhunt and GTA: San Andreas as examples).

To me, they're just games! If anything, banning violent games would be the same as also removing peoples rights to watch violent movies or disallowing people from purchasing / listening to music with explicit content etc which, to me, would be completely ridiculous. I'll outright admit that I love a bit of violence in games / movies... Am I sick for saying I sometimes find it satisying?

That was my main reason for liking Manhunt... I actually found it quite stress relieving to dedicate myself to a brainless game that contained little more than the ability to outright maim computer generated characters with little to no thought behind storyline or character developement. The same can be said about any GTA game... The majority of people who play them will always end up simply go on a killing spree for the fun of it...

To be perfectly honest, I saw more violent acts performed in the Warner Brothers cartoons of old as a mere child then I have in most computer games these days...

So... Should video game violence be put in the morgue or should we be free to digitally maim?

PS. Those who don't post answers to my liking... Well... Let's just say that the above posted video taught me quite a few nasty ways of using a crowbar...

*Twitch*

Vegeta

I think this debate is crazy, if the powers that be ban violent games they may as well ban most action hero cartoons, movies and comics.

I think its about time that parents started taking responsibility for letting kids play 18+ games

Retr0gamer

The story about the kid using stealth kills from Manhunt and killing somebody was entirely fabricated by the Daily Mail as a excuse to print a death by playstation article. It was the victim that owned manhunt and not the murderer.

As for violence in videogames I have to say I enjoy it. However I never liked games like SoF2 or Manhunt. I thought they were violence for the sake of violence since the games were terrible. They also give videogames a bad name and press which in my opinion iss their greatest crime. I wouldn't be repulsed by, say, GoW or Silent Hill as much since the violence does have a place. A two sword decapitation in the PoP games is far more satisfying than any of the stealth kills in Manhunt. I am very much opposed to the out right banning of these games since is oppression of freedom of speech. I really think it's a joke that people blame videogames for their actions.

The case of the Korean guy murdering his friend should be seen as a murder because his friend stole something valuable belonging to him. Happens all the time only this time the item stolen happened to be from a videogame. If the courts would have recognised this as theft it could have been prevented. The murderer did go to the police first who told him they could help.

Merrick

Sigh... When will people realise that the games themselves don't cause murders, it's the fact that the aforementioned murderers are psychopaths!!

madrab

yeah im with retro on this, i like violence in video games

but manhunter was overly violent & purely selling on that point, didnt find the game anyway enjoyable to play

Dont be at yourself

I don't think that anybody can argue that children playing violent video-games is A Bad Thing. The fact is, any media that people are exposed to in their formative years are going to have an affect on them. Sure, a lot of us grew up playing the exact same kind of game (though games have become more violent as time goes on - Manhunt being a case in point), and watching violent movies and whatnot, but just because we turned out ok, doesn't mean everyone will.

The only bone of contention with me is with the solutions being offered to the above problem. We've heard so many schemes - banning violent games outright, 100% tax on violent games, and so on. These are not only over-the-top, but completely unneccessary. We have laws in place - they just need to be enforced by the retailers (which nowadays they by in large are), and respected by the parents (which they're often not, at all).

So, the problem, as I see it, lies with the parents. They are often oblivious to the content of these games, or depressingly, just don't seem to care. I'm not sure of the solution - perhaps the media campaign to villify videogames will actually drive home the message that their kids shouldn't be playing the latest 50Cent-endorsed gangland epic.

Vegeta

NekkidBibleMan wrote:

I don't think that anybody can argue that children playing violent video-games is A Bad Thing. The fact is, any media that people are exposed to in their formative years are going to have an affect on them. Sure, a lot of us grew up playing the exact same kind of game (though games have become more violent as time goes on - Manhunt being a case in point), and watching violent movies and whatnot, but just because we turned out ok, doesn't mean everyone will.

The only bone of contention with me is with the solutions being offered to the above problem. We've heard so many schemes - banning violent games outright, 100% tax on violent games, and so on. These are not only over-the-top, but completely unneccessary. We have laws in place - they just need to be enforced by the retailers (which nowadays they by in large are), and respected by the parents (which they're often not, at all).

So, the problem, as I see it, lies with the parents. They are often oblivious to the content of these games, or depressingly, just don't seem to care. I'm not sure of the solution - perhaps the media campaign to villify videogames will actually drive home the message that their kids shouldn't be playing the latest 50Cent-endorsed gangland epic.

here here and well said

ObeyGiant

First things first. I don't think anyone (not even Jack Thompson) is calling for an outright ban on violent videogames. AFAIK, only Australia has a system that can 'ban' a videogame and even then it's through a legal loophole (or, more accurately, legal oversight). Thankfully, our antipodean cousins are looking to change this oversight.

What most of the videogame critics are calling for is a ban of the sale of violent videogames to minors. Despite what NekkidBibleMan says, we don't have any laws in place regarding videogames. Both the US system (ESRB) and the European one (PEGI) are voluntary classification schemes designed to inform parents, rather than provide any form of prohibition. Although some retailers take a hard-line stance with these and refuse to sell any game that hasn't been classified, the simple truth is that if a retailer sells a "mature" videogame to a minor, they will get little more than a slap on the wrist.

This is why people are instead calling for the law to step in and govern video games ratings. This would give parents (and retailers, and developers) actual legal protection when it comes to these extreme situations the videogame community has found itself in over the last few years.

December Son

Violent games dont make psychopaths. They just make psychopaths more creative.

madrab

ObeyGiant wrote:

First things first. I don't think anyone (not even Jack Thompson) is calling for an outright ban on violent videogames. AFAIK, only Australia has a system that can 'ban' a videogame and even then it's through a legal loophole (or, more accurately, legal oversight). Thankfully, our antipodean cousins are looking to change this oversight.

What most of the videogame critics are calling for is a ban of the sale of violent videogames to minors. Despite what NekkidBibleMan says, we don't have any laws in place regarding videogames. Both the US system (ESRB) and the European one (PEGI) are voluntary classification schemes designed to inform parents, rather than provide any form of prohibition. Although some retailers take a hard-line stance with these and refuse to sell any game that hasn't been classified, the simple truth is that if a retailer sells a "mature" videogame to a minor, they will get little more than a slap on the wrist.

This is why people are instead calling for the law to step in and govern video games ratings. This would give parents (and retailers, and developers) actual legal protection when it comes to these extreme situations the videogame community has found itself in over the last few years.

certain games like gta & manhunt were given the same 18's cert that movies get & shops were fined if they sold them to minors, i was working in xtravision at the time & we were givin a real bollocking if we sold these games to anyone under 18, more so than vids & dvds

ambro25

madrab wrote:

i was working in xtravision at the time & we were givin a real bollocking if we sold these games to anyone under 18, more so than vids & dvds

Not quite on-target, your point: little Johnny wants Manhunt, is sufficiently savvy (already! :rolleyes: ) to know that you'll not sell it to him, but if he comes into the shop with Mummy and makes enough of a scene - then you'll sell it to Mummy and he'll get to play it at home... is more the point.

Cue: "I always tell customers who buy for they kids...yada-yada-yada... what can I do? I can't refuse to sell to the parent!" etc

It's a round hole you won't ever be able to fit a square peg in

Vegeta

What if its a really small square peg???

Dont be at yourself

ObeyGiant wrote:

What most of the videogame critics are calling for is a ban of the sale of violent videogames to minors. Despite what NekkidBibleMan says, we don't have any laws in place regarding videogames. Both the US system (ESRB) and the European one (PEGI) are voluntary classification schemes designed to inform parents, rather than provide any form of prohibition. Although some retailers take a hard-line stance with these and refuse to sell any game that hasn't been classified, the simple truth is that if a retailer sells a "mature" videogame to a minor, they will get little more than a slap on the wrist.

Yep, PEGI is voluntary. However, the violent games that are likely to spark outrage (the GTAs, Manhunts etc) are referred to the film censor's office - where they're assigned a rating that must be abided to by law. The mechanism is in place for games to be assigned legally-binding ratings - whether or not enough games are assigned them is another point of discussion. Looking at the BBFC in Britain, they seem to rate many more games than we do, and that's something that should definitely be looked at, I feel.

So, the laws are in place. They just need to be properly implemented - that includes classifying and rating the games, adhering to these ratings in the shops, and punishing shops that dont do so.

Absolutely no point in drafting new legislature when the current laws can solve the problem, if properly implemented (and if the parents accept their responsibility too - which is still the main problem, in my mind).

Blisterman

Well there's no law stopping retailers in Ireland from selling violent videogames to minors, like there is in England.

I agree with some sort of rating system. Banning games/films/literature from grown ups, I don't agree with at all.
I also think that people should take responsibility for their own actions, and stop blaming it on violent games, etc.

Dont be at yourself

Blisterman wrote:

Well there's no law stopping retailers in Ireland from selling violent videogames to minors, like there is in England.

Yes there is. Just as in the UK games classified by the BBFC cannot legally be sold to those not of legal age, games in Ireland that are classified by the IFCO cannot be legally sold to those not of legal age. All irish shops must obtain a licence to carry games, and non-compliance with the law can result in fines and even the licence being revoked. The only distinction between Ireland and the UK that I can see, is that the UK classifies more games than Ireland - bewilderingly, games like The Punisher slipt through without classification, for example.

Dont be at yourself

Clarification:

From IFCO.ie
Does IFCO classify video games?

Under the Video Recordings Act 1989 video games are exempt from classification unless they are deemed prohibitable under section 3 (1) of the Act.

Ireland, along with 15 other European countries, is a member of PEGI, an organisation which produces age ratings for video games. To learn more about this system the PEGI website is www.pegi.info

Section 3(1) of the above act:

3.—(1) The Official Censor shall, on application to him in relation to a video work, grant to the person making the application (referred to in this section as the applicant) a certificate (referred to in this Act as a supply certificate) declaring the work to be fit for viewing unless he is of opinion that the work is unfit for viewing because—

( a ) the viewing of it—

(i) would be likely to cause persons to commit crimes, whether by inciting or encouraging them to do so or by indicating or suggesting ways of doing so or of avoiding detection, or

(ii) would be likely to stir up hatred against a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation, or

(iii) would tend, by reason of the inclusion in it of obscene or indecent matter, to deprave or corrupt persons who might view it,

or

( b ) it depicts acts of gross violence or cruelty (including mutilation and torture) towards humans or animals.

So, pretty much any violent game may be classified by the IFCO, it appears.

Blisterman

My mistake. It must have changed, since I looked it up a few years ago.

Dont be at yourself

Worth a read for those who are interested in this topic:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=14654

ObeyGiant

IANAL, but my interpretation of what the IFCO answer to that question is that Irish legislation has provisions for banning videogames if they are deemed 'unsuitable'. This gives the government the ability to turn around tomorrow and ban Manhunt (for example). Exactly like it gives the government the ability to turn around tomorrow and ban A Clockwork Orange (for example). But otherwise, the games do not have to pass through the IFCO, and so there are no laws regarding the sale of violent video games to minors.

But again, I am not a lawyer and I'm happy to be proved wrong in this regard.

But two things here. One, I should clear up what I said about Australia - it's the only place I can think of that bans violent video games *outright*. My understanding is that Irish law just has the option to do this.

Second, even if I'm wrong about this, America has no such legislation regarding violent video games. Their system is entirely voluntary, and that's what these anti-violent-videogame-crusaders are trying to change.

Dont be at yourself

AFAIK, the IFCO powers extend further than just banning/passing a game. It can place, and has in the past, a legally-binding age rating on games, just as it does with films. Grand Theft Auto, for example, was referred to the IFCO, and that game carries a legally binding rating that must be enforced by shops - entirely different to the PEGI rating. It has even awarded legally binding 15s ratings to games as well, I think - so it's not just used for the ultra-violent.

But yeah, I don't know what legislature, if any, is in place in the US. I absolutely agree that there should be legal provision against the sale of violent games to kids, but I dont agree with alot of the suggestions put forward by the more sensationalist crusaders.

Retr0gamer

I'm almost sure that videogames have to be submitted to the BBFC and IFCO voluntarily to get an age rating. Thats why games like the punisher slip through.

ObeyGiant

From Wikipedia's article on Censorship in the Republic of Ireland

Computer Games

Unlike most other countries, the Film Censors have no right to censor any form of video games. This led to an unusual situation where in the 1990s, UK owned game sales multiples sold the sanitised versions of Carmageddon, whilst Irish owned stores sold the uncut versions imported from the United States. Games may only be banned if they contain content which could be classed as pornography.

Ireland is a member of PEGI, but places no legal powers on its age recommendations. Retailers may attempt to enforce them at their discretion, but in the case of a protest they must sell the product to the customer.

projectmayhem

PEGI does a fine job. the logo's and age rating are clear to the most dim-witted idiot of a fool. if you buy a game "not knowing" it has violence or strong language then frankly, you should get some glasses...

in this whole debate about video game violence, where are the parents in this? like i said, PEGI has nice big logo's to say what to expect from a game... so when a kid ends up with manhunt or GTA in their bedroom, why do the game publishers/developers end up in court?

if a parent went on a political and legal rampage over finding "a clockwork orange" in their kids' bedroom you'd be damn sure the parent would be pulled up, not WB

Jimi-Spandex

Firstly I don't think video games cause violence in kids. People who commit the violent acts that cause the sensationalisation of video game violence clearly have pre-existing psychotic dispositions. The fact that they imitate games is a moot point. If they didn't get their inspiration from games, it would have been movies, cartoons, books, music or what have you. Parents like to blame media because it shifts the attention from them, no one seems to question the actions of the parents of the kids who go and do these things. Parents should be taking an interest in what their kids are playing and make sure that they're not buying them the GTA's or Manhunts.

That's not to say retailers have no responsibilty in the matter. I'm not aware of what policies they have and correct me if they do but they should be asking for id for 18+ games for anyone who looks like they may be underage. I don't think they should have to explain to parent that this game with the big 18 sticker is not for little timmy.

I also think ratings for games should be mandatory.

Kristok

People murdered other people before pong, before telly, before movies, before music, before books before we could talk.

Some people just like to do things most of us will never understand and there will always be people who blame x product on them being like that when in reality nothing was going to change them.

Dont be at yourself

Retr0gamer wrote:

I'm almost sure that videogames have to be submitted to the BBFC and IFCO voluntarily to get an age rating. Thats why games like the punisher slip through.

The quote from the IFCO website would seem to dispute that - any game 'deemed prohibitable' is referred to the IFCO. It does say who deems games prohibitable, but presumably it's not the publishers.

Obeygiant: I'm guessing that Wikipedia article is either out of date, or just plain wrong (shock! ) - as according to our statute books, the IFCO is entitled by law to censor *some* videogames (the excessively violent ones).

Projectmayhem: PEGI could do a fine job - if it was legaly enforced (and the ratings were assigned by more competent people, but that's a whole other discussion!). It's not against to law to sell a PEGI rated 18+ to a minor, so shops do it all the time. PEGI will only work with the co-operation of parents, and that isn't happening.

Kristok, Jimi-spandex: You honestly dont believe that exposing young kids to such graphic violence doesn't have an affect on them? Many of these game-related murders aren't from psychopathic kids, they're from normal kids who are desensitised to violence, who want to copy their favourite video games because their cool, not because they want to hurt somebody.

ObeyGiant

NekkidBibleMan wrote:

Obeygiant: I'm guessing that Wikipedia article is either out of date, or just plain wrong (shock! ) - as according to our statute books, the IFCO is entitled by law to censor *some* videogames (the excessively violent ones).

Well, the Wikipedia article is saying this, albeit in a pretty confusing manner.

What it's saying is that Irish law doesn't have any provisions for telling the game companies/distributers/retailers to change or remove questionable parts of their games. Under Irish Law, games are either 'banned' or not, and the IFCO has no dealing with them otherwise.

For example, with "Hot Coffee", IFCO had no legal way to go back to Rockstar and ask them to remove this feature, it could only decide if this made the game count as "pornography" and if so, ban it.

With regards what IFCO's answer to their FAQ, I'm still having real trouble understanding what they mean by "deemed prohibitable" - whether this means "could be prohibited" or "should be prohibited." I'll email them this morning to get clarification.

The BBFC however, spells it out in plain english.

Under the Video Recordings Act, most video games are exempt from BBFC classification. However, they may lose this exemption - and therefore require a formal BBFC classification - if they depict, to any significant extent, gross violence against humans or animals, human sexual activity, human urinary or excretory functions or genital organs, or techniques likely to be useful in the commission of offences. In the early days of video games, the quality of graphics was so low that, even when 'human' or 'animal' characters were depicted, they were unlikely to be realistic enough to be covered by the Act. However, the increasing sophistication of computer graphics means that nowadays a number of games require classification, usually because they contain violence against realistic human figures. In some cases, games may also need to be submitted to the BBFC because they contain non-interactive video elements (eg trailers or film clips) that do not enjoy the same exemption as interactive games.

Dont be at yourself

I've dropped them an email after my post for clarifacation, so no point in us all hassling them!

Kristok

NekkidBibleMan wrote:

Kristok, Jimi-spandex: You honestly dont believe that exposing young kids to such graphic violence doesn't have an affect on them? Many of these game-related murders aren't from psychopathic kids, they're from normal kids who are desensitised to violence, who want to copy their favourite video games because their cool, not because they want to hurt somebody.

For every kid who does something stupid because of a game or movie etc there are a million who dont. Why where those kids not going out doing stupid things ? Cause their parents brought them up better and they have a sense of what is real and what is make believe. What about the news ? theres more violence on news channels than in an average game do you think we should censor the news incase kids see it ? There has to be a point where you say ok some people are crazy and theres nothing you can do about it. The rest of us cant live our lifes by their requirments. Ive played games all my life and I love violent films but that dosnt make me desensitised to violence, when I see something or do something in the real world its a whole othere thing. If a kid who is prone to do stupid things and is not supervised you cant blame rockstar because he tried to emulate something he saw in gta. You blame the parents for allowing them into that situation.

TheDoc

I skipped kinda the whole read to post my view.

I love violent games. I dont like footie games, racing or any of that rubbish. I just love having a gun in hand shooting things. Over 90% of my games are first person shooters, role playing or rts games. Every game i have is related to violence and war.

Games are rated, for 18+ , end of discussion, if a kid goes, sees a game and re inacts stuff, its not anyones problems except his and the parent. You alwyas hear news bout game smost people want banned, all this crap jargon, like the marlyn manson incident, the school shooting where doom was blamed, gta stories and manhunt.

Have you ever heard of the two college students who died in their rent out house? In america i think two colelge students attempted to build a properly working lightsaber, and crossing highly explosive materials and lasers instnatly discintegrated themselves , I'll try find the link.

But you dont hear people crying for star wars to be banned, or even lord of the rings.

The fact is its fiction and because someone people are mentally thick and stupid and reinact things, they should be jsut thrown into a cell and the key thrown away.

Its pure lunacy to blame video games/movies.

but if one game, jsut one game gets banned, like manhunt, like gta in some countries, there should be unrest, as its governments taking ove rpwoer, taking away your right to freedom.

They might aswell ban every television set, every dvd player, every console and every camera.

What about channels like cnn showing american soldiers bieng desecrated on tv during the 1993 somalian raids in mogodashu.

Showing US soldiers beatin and abusing prisioners.

Showing the Taliban executing 6 women in a footbal stadium.

Showing a man being decapitated....on TV

monument

NekkidBibleMan wrote:

The quote from the IFCO website would seem to dispute that - any game 'deemed prohibitable' is referred to the IFCO. It does say who deems games prohibitable, but presumably it's not the publishers.

I think Retr0gamer is right on that one, and it's the same with films.

3.—(1) The Official Censor shall, on application to him in relation to a video work, grant to the person making the application (referred to in this section as the applicant) a certificate (referred to in this Act as a supply certificate) declaring the work to be fit for viewing unless he is of opinion that the work is unfit for viewing because—