Manhunt blamed!


#183

christ, another angry parent trying to shift the weight to someone other than themselves…

  1. Parents need to make sure their kids arent doing what they dont want them to do. My parents know everything i play because they ASK god damnit.

mom: “What did you buy today?”
me: “UT2004. a shooter game for the computer.”
mom: “looks violent. why do you play this?”
me: “well you watch shows on spending money to make your house, yard, and self look better even though it has no real point or gain. why do you watch them?”
mom: “i enjoy them, and i think its important.”
me: “same here.”

she KNOWS i play violent games, sometimes all day. but her idea of violence is rather broad, she cant watch the LOTR movies because “the orcs are ugly and evil…nasty…they are violent…”. but thats her opinion, and she DOESNT question mine. if she wanted she could have sealed me off a LONG time ago from the violent world and my life would be similar to the hell i see some kids living in (they dont know anything the rest of us talk about or do, its like they HAVE been living under a protective rock). but she lets me do my thing, cuz i know whats right and wrong. dont overly censor your kids for christs sake, they are gonna grow up to be REALLY screwed. knowing nothing about what the rest of the world knows all about…coudl YOU stand living like that? keeping them from ALL violent games is not the question. keeping them from THE MOST VIOLENT is better, since they are…well…just over-doing it. and shielding your kids and not giving them a reason they can UNDERSTAND will just result in retaliation. my mom kept me from horror movies since she thought they were wrong and would affect me. i kept wanting to see them for the longest time and when i did…i still cant watch horror movies without jumping or getting paranoid. i have the opinion that most of them are too dumb or pointless (thanx mom!) after being told this for so long. i watched the first jason last year after is had been out for so long…it scared the crap outa me. but my friend, who owns about 50 horror titles, couldnt understand why i was freakin out cuz he had been watching them his whole life. he is COMPLETELY immune to being scared. so now i have to watch all the horror i can to get over my paranoidness. not just for the movies, but for everything else as well. i jump very badly when someone sneaks up on me or i see a sudden movement. if ur kids wanna watch a few horror movies let them for crying out loud! at best they will have a nightmare, then next time it will just be fun. im getting into the mood where i start to laugh when stuff happens.

parents: moderate your kids so they just take in a little bit of everythng, but more and more of what you want them to intake. but if they wanna go in a different direction: CONSIDER IT! if its really bad then explain to them thoroughly why its not a good idea. dont tell them “NO! your not doing that and thats FINAL!” cuz then they will do it anyway to see why you dont want them to and get u pissed in the process. kids deserve to learn on their own. they arent friggin pets.

  1. companys are not responsible for the content in games. the game is what THEY want it to be, not the consumers.after all, they are making the game in the vision they see it. its their own project and how it turns out is how they want it, not us. what the consumers want in the game that they add only helps it sell better. but usually the consumers make it, in this case, more violent. if the game as a mature rating or even the teen rating its the consumers responsibility. the stores now have to regulate that the people who buy the game are old enough, NOT the developers. complain to the stores. mabey they need to do what they do with porn magazines: keep them INDEFFINETELY out of reach of smaller kids or where the store attendant has to get it for them back in storage. give it a special marker, requiring an id check of some sort. letting small kids walk out of the store with a mature rated game is PURELY the fault of the store. heres an example: i buy my stuff on a military base since i live in germany. they require an ID check on everything (EVERYTHING!) so they know only people who are supposed to buy stuff are and not a german that managed to get in through friends or something. when i buy games/music/movies/magazines/ice cream they look at my id. if the object im buying is for mature audiences they check my date of brith. if i am not old enough they refuse. and its not cuz they can tell im young, i look 20 (which they tell me). they even check the ids of OLD guys that are obviously 40-50 buying R-rated movies or worse. and if they dont got an id, but are 40-ish, wearing a military outfit and can even back up they are workin on the base, they will not sell to them. period. i think stores could benefit from this kind of system.

  2. i know friends might have “connections” and can get the game for their bud who cant buy it on their own. THIS IS THE BIGGEST PROBLEM. you CANNOT stop this unless you kno who the person is and stop them, or kepe your kid away from them. but if they are a good friend your kid will get resentful and may start to hate you, which you dont want. informing the other persons parents might be best. 2 adults can sort it out better than 2 kids. but afterwards EXPLAIN to the kid why its bad until they understand. and not that sullen “ok…” answer, that just means they think your paranoid and stupid. GET IT IN THEIR HEAD, but gently. i thought GTA was the greatest thing on the earth, so i got my friend to burn me a copy of it. fortunately my computer ran it great with most of the settings turned down so my mom could clearly see what was going on. she had problems with it of course, since she read about the game from whiny complainers like the mom this topic was started for. but i explained that i knew what it was and i knew i would never do anything like that, and she knew i wasnt crazy. all i really played the game for was its enourmous size and the sheer amount of stuff you could do.

  3. then i found EQ and RPG (the REAL rpgs, not friggin FF jesus…). GTA3 got old very fast then, even the fun of shooting triads and the suits was gone. EQ, morrowind, sacrifice, and starcraft were still plenty violent but had more interesting traits that lured me to them and kept me there. it took thinking, time, effort, and patience. GTA was kinda senseless ater i looked at it again. the only reason i play Vice City is because its got the old-kool style i dont usually see in many games. it was just fun for its setting, and didnt completely cater to the current trends during its release period. best of the series IMO, and the nest GTA is gonna suck terribly i think.

anyway she let me keep playing it. it got old, i saw how brainless it was after she kept coming in saying “why did you do that? did they deserve it? what gain do you get from doing this? is this FUN?” eventually it dawned on me the game was just crap. all you could do was drive around or kill. that was literally it. mabey the other games were all about fighting, but at least i had to use my BRAIN. and if i get defeated the consequences are far more serious. mabey not on a real-life scale but sure are worse than in GTA (not reall a loss losing your weapons for going ona mass genocide instead of being killed on sight).

if you let your kids play the game while also letting them play others, while questioning the purpose of it they may see that the game really isnt all they thought it was. introduce them to strategy games that still involve a little violence. humans like to solve and figure out things as much a violence if not more. if we didnt we would constantly wonder how do do stuff in different ways, or what would the effect be if we did something another way. we wouldnt have figured out that hitting something breaks it, and hitting it harder breaks it more, which later evolved into hitting a creature hurts it, hitting it harder kills it.

i watched my friend play manhunt, and i have to say it was pretty damn gruesome. but it at least went a step higher than GTA in making you think, as opposed to going in guns blazing and, even if you die, you can go back and do it again. in MH, if you die you DIE! and its actually hard. you are as weak as your opponent except you have a brain and they dont. it did push the limits of gore levels and violence commited by the player (poke guns eyes out, choek em with a bag and beat em senseless, shoot a guy in the head and all thats left is a big circle, even cutting dudes heads off and throwing them at the enemy!! holy cow!!). but consider the story and plot: your a criminal that was saved from execution. ok, mabey you can reform and be good again. now your trapped in a deserted city run by thugs, corrupt police, and everyone is out to get you. ok thats a bit more difficult… and you are directed by a snuff film director, with you as the star. well that sucks. what you have to do? kill everyone, make the film interesting. soon as your done your free. well crap, got no choice. so ready and ACTION!

i liked the story. it was newer than most violent games that had recently or even rpeviously been released. and with a plot like that you cant get non-violent. it was a snuf-film game and you got screwed over. your set in a abandoned town run by thugs and corrupt police, and the starkweather is the power figure in the settlement.

i would rant on how a ban of violent games would be an awful thing but im tired of writing this post right now. ill save that one for later.


#184

people that go out and kill people after playing a computer game are completely nuts to begin with… he is also 17, NOT OLD ENOUGH TO LEGALLY BUY THE GAME… his parents should of stopped him

exactly!..

The cases:

Against RS:

Creation of a game that cause brutal violence ans suffering, a danger to society.

Against parents:

The game was clearly stated an 18C, and you the parents allowed him to play it even though he was seventeen.

Defence parents:

We didnt know a game could prevoke acts of violence in our son.

Defence RS:

18c is clearly stated, and our EUA applies the fact that no one under the age is not allowed to play it. It is up to the seller and the parents to enforce this.

The parents dont have a leg to stand on, if the son was 18 or 20 then Rockstar would be stuffed. But they’ll be squished, also with the backing of Sony -(Due to there sale and release onto PS2) will able to throw milllions to fight their case and even sue the parents

An article recently in New Scientist, found that the media (in which we absorb an average of 26,000 adverts a day, in the form of sound, image and movies into our brain) can have a affect on children and teenagers, the later being the most important.

Now this just backs RS case, the kid was 17 hes parent allowed him to play even though new scientist had release an article clearly on the topic i.e its been put in the public mindset.

HOooAHH!

eek


#185

this whole 18 year old thing is crap.

the guy was 17? so basically if he had played it a few months later he would have been ok to play the game? thats total BS. the only defence a kid could have is “I didnt know killing was a bad thing” and thats when their about 4 or 5. at 17 your an adult you should be able to know between right and wrong.

a 17 year old killing someone is not a child missguided by evil video games (Damn you video games!!!) he is like all the other killers out there

I have been playing violent video games as long as I can remember. I am 17 now and played mortal combat when it came out, the original doom, doom 2, Unreal tournament, and numerous others.

more often than not video games stop murders. consider this:

person A gets mad at person B. person A feals like killing person B. person A goes to play Unreal tournament 2004. person A uses emotion of anger to become best of the map (person A is happy and totally forgot about person B.


#186

oh yeah that to, forgot about that “killing is bad thingy!”.

eek


#187

walshbem, i’m sorry. i understand that forms of entertainment will affect each person differently. and…i guess i kinda went off on some wild tangent, but that’s what i was trying to say.

<To all>
Each person is affected differently, and my question is, “if each person is affected differently by this stimuli, then why are some blaming it solely on the game?”…this WILL be my last post to this thread…not because i fear being proven wrong, but because this is a topic that can go on forever. I hope that we all realize that this is just beating a dead horse (or however that saying goes). i also hope that there are no hard feelings between members in this great site. i personally will hold no grudges.:slight_smile:


#188

workin in blockbusters ive jus had to sign some paper stating that i am not allowed to express my own opinion or view to any form of outside media about the whole manhunt issue…


#189

my point exactly. if people are affected differently and one person snaps and kills people after playing a game then their brain is the problem not the game.

and since every is affected diferently why put everybody in the same category. you can’t say “kids” are affected in this way. and you cant just say no one can play this game.


#190


#191

And heres the twist.

http://www.mcvuk.com/html/news/story.jsp?newsId=1928139


#192

blame before the whole story is known…mabey the mother is even covering up info that could utterly crush her prosecution.

and, looking back at that post i made, GOD DAMN but its long…


#193

“As for the link between Manhunt and the crime, the police are clear. Pooni said: “We haven’t connected the game with the murder and we’ve already made that statement, but some sections of the media chose to ignore it
the motive was robbery”

"…Whilst we cannot comment on behalf of the publisher of the game in question, the procedures that it adopted were entirely responsible and in line with legal and industry codes of practice.”
Tsc tsc … these damn stupid and irresponsible cops … where would we be if not the well-informed media? :rolleyes:


#194

I am in awe of your mad ranting skillz… :bowdown:


#195

thank you i really try. rants are my life :scream:

if there was nothing for me to argue about in the world, id argue how such a travesty could be.


#196

Heh, check this out.

"Police involved in the Stefan Pakeerah murder case have revealed that the copy of Manhunt at the centre of a tabloid media frenzy last week was found in the possession of the victim, not the killer.

Newspapers and TV news channels gave significant coverage to the case last week, when the mother of the victim claimed that 17-year-old killer Warren LeBlanc had been “obsessed” with the ultra-violent Rockstar game.

However, according to a spokesperson for Leicestershire Constabulary, the police division which investigated the murder, the link is even more tenuous than was reported previously - with the game being found not in the room of the murderer, but of the victim."


#197

I imagine alot of posters are going

“…oh pymigies…”

right about now.


#198

Nah, my stuff was probabbly too off-topic to make any difference anyways… :wink:


#199

Maibe its ok sueing the games company for having a violent game that influences a kid who indirectly influences another kid into murder? I mean, its preety direct. Its just one more little step in the causal chain… :rolleyes:


#200

Well then you could sue any film that was violent and any person the kid saw being violent and any violent sounding music, Like the main point is the game was meant for 18 year olds and so he shouldnt have been allowed to play it, if anyones to blame its the shop that sold it (if they sold it to him) or the person who bought it for him.

violent images dont make violent people. Otherwise every single person in the world is probably a bunny boiler waiting to explode into a fit of murderous rage, cause at some point we must have all seen some form of violence.


#201

Not real direct: http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?t=159885

The game belonged to the victim. He was assaulted by a friend who wanted money to buy drugs. Nothing to do with the game at all.


#202

humm… thought the :rolleyes: would be expressive enough … but … since it wasn’t … i was being sarcastic, as in “Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)” .

The post was ment to express the little to none at all causality chain between the events reported. PLAYING A GAME CAN NOT MAKE U KILL SOMEONE. The indirect influence was a sarcastic remark about the weak links on this chain of events.