gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php
www.joystiq.com/entry/1882334911266433/
Boy plays Rockstar's ultraviolent Manhunt game. Boy plays it a lot. Boy kills friend with a claw hammer and knife. Parents of victim, and mass media all blame the game.
Okay, here is a clue for the mass media: don't ignore the fact that the murderer killed his friend for money to pay for his drug habit. Don't ignore that someone who's got a drug habit that requires theivery to pay for likely has obsessive/compulsive issues to deal with that are not on the level of "typically impressionable youth." How about, for once, focusing on the life of the nutjob who has committed the crime? Why the hell are you looking at a game which has been clearly directed at adults, and has fallen into the hands of someone for whom it was obviously not intended, but over which he was predisposed to obsess?
It is likely, with the rise of violent, "mature themed" videogames, that if there was a direct cause-and-effect between these games and violent behavior, there would be a huge, readily visible jump in murders committed by the demographic. There isn't one. Actually, if videogames were good at inspiring bad behavior, there would be armies of little Doom and Quake LPBs out there, trying to circle-strafe cops, and being gunned down for their efforts.
There is rarely any mention of the retail chains that sell these titles to kids inappropriately, and worse, parents who blatantly ignore the rare warnings of the clerk about such a purchase. It's always talk that these games shouldn't even be made, despite the obviously large audience that buys and appreciates them, while somehow managing NOT TO KILL THEIR FRIENDS.
From the article:
Speaking outside Leicester Crown Court yesterday, Giselle Pakeerah, mother of the murdered boy, said that "I think that I heard some of Warren's friends say that he was obsessed by this game. If he was obsessed by it, it could well be that boundaries for him became quite hazy."
"I can't believe that this sort of material is allowed in a society where anarchy is not that far removed," she continued. "It should not be available and it should not be available to young people."
Despite the allegations now being made about the influence of the game on Leblanc, the actual motive given for the killing by prosecutor Peter Joyce QC was a rather more obvious one; the teen had lured his friend to a deserted car park with the intent of robbing him to pay a drugs-related debt.
www.joystiq.com/entry/1882334911266433/
Boy plays Rockstar's ultraviolent Manhunt game. Boy plays it a lot. Boy kills friend with a claw hammer and knife. Parents of victim, and mass media all blame the game.
Okay, here is a clue for the mass media: don't ignore the fact that the murderer killed his friend for money to pay for his drug habit. Don't ignore that someone who's got a drug habit that requires theivery to pay for likely has obsessive/compulsive issues to deal with that are not on the level of "typically impressionable youth." How about, for once, focusing on the life of the nutjob who has committed the crime? Why the hell are you looking at a game which has been clearly directed at adults, and has fallen into the hands of someone for whom it was obviously not intended, but over which he was predisposed to obsess?
It is likely, with the rise of violent, "mature themed" videogames, that if there was a direct cause-and-effect between these games and violent behavior, there would be a huge, readily visible jump in murders committed by the demographic. There isn't one. Actually, if videogames were good at inspiring bad behavior, there would be armies of little Doom and Quake LPBs out there, trying to circle-strafe cops, and being gunned down for their efforts.
There is rarely any mention of the retail chains that sell these titles to kids inappropriately, and worse, parents who blatantly ignore the rare warnings of the clerk about such a purchase. It's always talk that these games shouldn't even be made, despite the obviously large audience that buys and appreciates them, while somehow managing NOT TO KILL THEIR FRIENDS.
From the article:
Speaking outside Leicester Crown Court yesterday, Giselle Pakeerah, mother of the murdered boy, said that "I think that I heard some of Warren's friends say that he was obsessed by this game. If he was obsessed by it, it could well be that boundaries for him became quite hazy."
"I can't believe that this sort of material is allowed in a society where anarchy is not that far removed," she continued. "It should not be available and it should not be available to young people."
Despite the allegations now being made about the influence of the game on Leblanc, the actual motive given for the killing by prosecutor Peter Joyce QC was a rather more obvious one; the teen had lured his friend to a deserted car park with the intent of robbing him to pay a drugs-related debt.
posted by:
|
Japan
|
-
Re: Death by Playstation!
Sat, July 31, 2004 - 2:49 PMRant on, my friend, rant on.
::shakes head sadly at the stupidity of the above mentioned article:: -
-
Re: Death by Playstation!
Mon, August 2, 2004 - 7:46 AMIf you insist.
What is astonishing is not just that videogames are cited as a source that inspires violence, but that other forms of media are less tightly controlled, but perhaps more immersive. Videogames may one day be emotionally engaging beyond the ability to frustrate, energize, and cause suspense. Someday videogames may be as emotionally driving as a movie or prose. I've had fun playing games, but I've perhaps only ever been emotionally moved, affected by film or books.
If a twelve-year-old goes to Target and tries to pick up GTA3, they should encounter some resistance. I've heard tales from clerks who have warned /parents/ who are purchasing the games for their children, only to have the warning handwaved away and ignored. If a kid wants to pick up Jack Ketchum (or, being Target: Dean Koontz) or a copy of "In the Cut" there is NOTHING, there is NO requirement on the part of the publisher, no grading system for books, nothing to keep them out of the hands of kids. (I'm unclear on what the video purchase policies are for stores. Are they limited in age to the MPAA ratings in the same way movie theaters are?)
The news has taken to showing dead bodies; I don't remember this from my youth, but didn't the US show Saddam's sons' corpses on TV? Didn't we also have footage of missiles being guided into crowds of (reportedly armed) insurgents in Iraq? Whatabout the IR cam footage from the minigun attack from an Apache attack copter?
These are real images of real people really dying. They're readily available. What is the fucking point of complaining that kids can't tell the difference between cartoon violence, videogame violence, and real life violence (that they might commit) when they are confronted with high tech snuff films?
I do believe that young kids shouldn't play Mature-rated games. I think elementary students are generally not prepared for viewings Jason vs. Freddy. That doesn't mean that the entire consumer population should be limited to what the gov't/PAC-determined lowest common denominator approved content. And maybe something should be done to keep violent, stress-inducing, real world violence content away from easy access by children, if these invasive, hypocritical, and inconsistent gumflappers would like to stay credible.
-
