Slashdot Mirror
Manhunt Violence Story Sees Updates, Threats
Thanks to Blue's News for covering the latest developments in a UK videogame violence story, in which the Rockstar North-created game Manhunt was very allegedly implicated in "a grisly murder" - it's revealed: "The game was present in the victim's home, not the killer's... This may present a problem for those looking to turn this case to their own ends." Nonetheless, previously mentioned attorney Jack Thompson is jumping straight on the case, even from an continent away, according to GameDaily, as he rages: "We are going to destroy Rockstar, you can count on that... [ESA head] Doug Lowenstein makes Saddam Hussein look like a post-reformed Pinocchio." Finally, Gamesindustry.biz injects a thoughtful note into the mayhem, arguing: "Rockstar do not emerge from this affair smelling of roses... game makers could help the case a lot by trying to push the boundaries in terms of gameplay, rather than gore."
Feel free to jump on the morality bandwagon (or create one if you can't find it). I for one will continue blithely on, cackling with glee at a world that lets me do everything I would never consider doing in my own.
If someone wants to play a game about killing Hell spawn demons (Doom 3 refrence : check), eating babies (Dunno :check) or stabbing old ladies then they should be able to. It's not their fault if some nutter goes off the rails and ends up killing someone.
I'm sick of hearing "GAMES DID IT!" because it's a cheap excuse for a fucked up society. You can't blame the car makers for a drunk driver so lets not blame the Playstation for the fucked up little kid.
Mod me troll if you wish, I don't overly care for karma compared to my opinions on this topic. I think the world is fucked up and blaming my hobby, I can earn Karma back but I can't earn back ignoring my opinions and staying silent in a discussion I feel important.
I like muppets.
I read the Gamebiz interview and I'm pretty surprised that Thompson is a lawyer. Any decently competent lawyer knows better than to say "we are going to destory the other side" and throw out name calling. Until the last half of the interview, I thought the article was a joke... At least he'll make this whole affair entertaining to follow.
At least they didn't show a breast! Now THAT would have been evil and would have corrupted the minds of everyone that saw it.
"Thompson: There have been dozens of murders that have been tied to their products throughout the world, so it's just a matter of piling on, and we will do that. "
IF their have been over 24 murders that can be linked to rockstar why doesn't he name ONE?
THis is just like the crap people like this pulled concerning D&D and Heavy Metal.
Guns don't kill people, videogames kill people.
A Multiplayer Strategy Game for Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux
Aw MAN he disses Rock Star HARD! I mean like, some guy who murders tens of thousands of people with nerve gas and, like tortured ethnic minorities for fun is, like, way less evil than those fucker trying to make a game. DUUUUuuudDDe!
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
They may look awful, but looking awful and being responsible are two completely different things.
You wouldn't recommend the game, thats fine. (Either would I, but only because it was so boring imo). But everyone should have the right to decide if they want to play it or not. Just the same as parents have the right to let their kids play the game or not.
If the parents in this case let their kids play the game, they are the ones responsible. (Assuming some link between violent games and real life violence can be established). Simple as that.
I'd like to make fun of this guy, really I would...but how? He already sounds like a stereotypical villain from an Ayn Rand novel.
English is easier said than done.
With that guy representing the other side, I don't think we have anything to worry about. Insinuating that Doug Lowenstein is even lower on the moral scale than Saddam Hussein is all but a dead giveaway that the man possesses no faculties for logic, reasoning, or intelligent discourse.
No comment.
I look at it this way: Jack Thompson further proved himself to be an opportunistic scumbag. I'm surprised he didn't take the first flight to London as soon as he heard about it. But then again, we are talking about a total loon who would slit his mother's throat and/or sell his soul to the devil just to prove his asinine theories. Not to mention that he originated hearse-chasing(just like ambulance-chasing, except the destination's the funeral home) and he may be a necrophilliac. Let's analyze this scumbag, shall we?:
1) Thompson may be considered a racist since he helped lead censorship attacks against 2 Live Crew and Ice-T.
2) Thompson was ordered to take a psychological evaluation as part of a restraining order filed by Miami DJ Neil Rogers(IIRC, The Florida State Bar Association called Jack Thompson's sanity into question TWICE). In fact, Thompson can't even mention Rogers by name as part of that order, which came about when Thompson tried to have Rogers arrested over something he said on his radio show that Thompson didn't like.
3) Thompson has lost every case he started up involving the video game industry(the Paducah school shootings come to mind). When he tried to become Dustin Lynch's attorney last year(the case in Ohio where Thompson tried to blame(GTA3 for the murder), Lynch refused his services, so the judge banned him from being involved in the case, saying that Thompson had no right to defend a client that didn't even want him as his attorney; Lynch would later plead guilty anyway and in blood-stained letters sent to his victim's family members, he claimed he did it for "his own personal enjoyment" and that the game didn't make him do it. The prosecution even scoffed at Thompson's claims, saying that they had an open and shut case.
4) Thompson even enjoys calling HIMSELF a wacko(If you remember, he called himself "Wacky Jack" in a newspaper article about him joining the Haitians' lawsuit aginst Vice City).
Now about this particular case, Police officials don't even believe Thompson, the victim's parents or the British tabloid media. Officials have stated that robbery was the motive(The 17 year-old murderer killed the 14 year-old to rob him to pay off drug debts), and that the game was found in the VICTIM'S OWN BEDROOM!! Sounds to me like somebody has some explaining to do.
Jack Thompson has no credibility left, whether because of his own actions or because the federal courts continue to reject his claims. Yet the only reasons he's still around is 'cause of an apathetic news media(i.e. Anderson Cooper 360) and because he's an psychotic attention whore who's in need of mental help. And until a modern-day Edward R. Murrow questions the tactics of Thompson and his ilk, he'll continue this crap.
== BearDogg-X ==
I am a parent of an 11 year old boy and a pair of young girls.
..
We have an XBOX, and have been playing PC games for years. Personally, I like violent games. My boy is not violent, nor have we had any problems with his Video game playing, so I don't mind if he plays games like halflife, Quake, Doom, etc.
I draw the line at games like Manhunt, GTA, Carmageddon, etc. I am simply exercising my right as a parent, similar to deciding what movies I want him watching.
The problem I have is that other parents don't do the same. These are decent parents of decent kids - but I think that they just don't realize what kind of games are out there (they are obviously not supervising their kids video game playing). My boy has played these games at friends houses.
Its very easy to blame the parents but the truth of the matter is that nowadays parents are very busy, both parents work in most families, and they don't realize that these types of games exist and that their kids are playing them.
Personally, I was quite surprised at manhunt. It is very violent, and doesn't seem to have much outside of that. Boring
I don't believe that banning violent video games is the answer (censorship is rarely the answer), however parents must be re-educated that the video games of today are very different from the ones that they remember.
And that is so different from say carmageddon who?
the problem isn't the games, the wast majority of us play them without any toubles, the problem is in the retared people that can't tell reality and fiction apart, banning videogames while allowing violent hollywood movied won't do any good.
Well, whats your point? Yes I've played the game myself and yes I think the game is just plain awful, but that doesn't mean Rockstar should get sued because someone killed another person. Could you imagine the implications following after that? We'd have to sue car companies because someone drove their car while drunk. We'd have to sue steak knife companies because some kid ran around with it and stabbed his little brother. Etc etc.
If the game went around saying 'kill people, kill people, its all just a game' I could see why people would start pointing fingers at Rockstar, but when you consider the context "con gets pulled off deathrow without permission to play a game of cat and mouse" why not? When you think of it that way, you could say the main character is acting out in self-defense.
And of course, another nice quote from the story posted on Blues News:
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."
First, to clear up a few things -- apparently the fact that the victim owned the game isn't really meaningful, because they (killer and victim) played the game together (so where they played doesn't really make a difference). Second, the police investigating the crime *are* saying the reason for the killing was "robbery", not "videogame induced psychosis" or some such nonsense -- it seems like mostly this lawyer who's demonizing the game.
:)
Okay, now onto the interesting part of the discussion. It's nuts to say that the game "caused" the murder. But it's also short-sighted to say that it couldn't possibly have been a factor. Yes, the movies you watch and the games you play affect your state of mind, and your thought patterns. Not necessarily permanently... but they affect it. If they didn't, what would be the point? That's what's cool about a good action flick or videogame -- you get involved; you get an adrenaline rush and a feeling of power. After playing a really immersive game you walk around for a few hours seeing the *real* world in such a different light. Now, most of us have a decent enough moral compass that we know how much of that world you can actually recreate. One of my friends went a little far when we were 10 or so, and shot me with his BB gun, which hurt like hell, and he felt bad (and didn't do that again). That's normal, right? Sure, the "shoot the running target" popped into his head mostly because of the videogames we played -- and he had a lightning-quick trigger finger in the games -- but it was still well in the range of kids learning "that will hurt your friend, and we don't want to hurt our friends". He could just as well have carelessly kicked a soccer ball into my face. Our videogame experiences were balanced off with a lot of normal social interaction, with adults around, where we could learn about peaceful conflict resolution and so on. We didn't solve arguments with hammers.
So the games are not inherently "evil". HOWEVER, if your only role model for living life and resolving conflicts is Manhunt, you're going to be one screwed-up kid.
Bottom line -- with decent parenting, there's no question that a kid can survive any kind of video game... but I suspect a part of decent parenting would be keeping your kid from playing these kinds of realistically violent games, especially where the game requires acting out behavior that is so totally against the morals you're trying to teach them. Yeah, they're going to have to sort out their own way in a morally relative world when they're older (and choices are more complicated); but they'll have a much easier time if they've got the basics down already by the time they get there.
Adult gaming... Personally, I don't play modern shooters (since the first DOOM, really). They make me nauseous. The spinning walls, the gore, the unrelenting tension... I just don't find it fun at all, and I do wonder how good it is for one to frequently engage in virtual brutality like that. But adults gaming is a different animal -- most of us already have basic habits for interacting with others that are pretty worn in. But kids who don't have those habits yet (and the worse their parents/peers/teachers are, the older they may be) just don't need that.
Here's a quasi-parallel situation to think about -- why is it that mothers teach their daughters to be "nice" to their dolls? ("No, honey -- you'll hurt baby's arm if you pull it like that") Because it's practice for dealing with *real* babies, and real other little girls. Pulling hair is bad, soft patting is good, etc.. And in reverse, children of abusive parents often beat up their dolls or toys -- they're just practicing what they've learned (and sadly, they'll frequently abuse their own kids the same way, years later).
Just my thoughts -- sorry if I started rambling a bit.
First off, I never had a problem with gore in games and still don't, and I don't think it "hurt" me having seen it as a kid, either. I'm just not "into it" for the sake of it myself.
I have however seen a fair amount of people who no doubt enjoy the violence first and foremost and to lengths that can get fucking creepy. PERIOD. I just had such an encounter a few days ago, a 25 year old who kept attacking corpses lying on the ground in gta3:vc, making noises with his mouth. (later on I realized he does the same with movies heh!)
This is not the fault of the games, to the contrary, the game is a harmless way to signal you have issues.. but I'm sure these people would say the same thing, "I don't play it for the gore". If I had to guess at reasons for liking violent media, then this particular person seemed to be fascinated by the fact that others had "such sick ideas" (quoted), he even seemed to daydream of taking revenge on people who hurt him etc. and this stuff made him feel better about having such daydreams. Okay, really creepy extreme example of a person with issues - but those people play these games too, and of just making a buck off them and otherwise sweeping their underlying issues under the rug is what I can't stand. Pointing fingers would be counterproductive, I don't have any real suggestions or solutions - but don't ignore it.
The game has an 18 certificate... the kids weren't 18.. And the parents don't want to accept any small portion of responsibility? WTF?
.... once again, the computer is seen as a modern replacement for proper parenting...
"Oh, he's in his room on his computer"
if you do destroy rockstar, please do it *after* the release of GTA: San Andreas, and preferably GTA 4 if there is one.
thank you
That man tried to kill mah Daddy
I do have a good bit of sympathy with the main point of the gamesindustry.biz article. I don't believe in outright censorship or banning of games (although I don't object to an age-based classification system), but I do recognise that there is an argument over this which needs to be won and that games like Manhunt really aren't helping the case.
The Grand Theft Auto games were at least innovative in terms of gameplay (or at least, GTA3 was... Vice City perhaps less so). With Manhunt, by all account, the only selling point are the buckets of gore and the explicitely sadistic objectives. I saw a news article the other day saying that American Magee was intending to make "the most violent game ever"... but why? If you look at the world of movies, you'll find plenty of violence. However, the movies at the Manhunt end of the spectrum tend to be relegated to the straight-to-video category of "video nasties" and you don't normally get well known directors setting out to make "the most violent movie ever" (well... maybe Quentin Tarantino does, but at least his movies have other qualities, a la GTA3).
Ultimately, the great "videogames are evil" argument still has a couple of years to run. These arguments are inevitably won from the middle-ground. While I would support the right of developers to make whatever games they want, it would be nice if they had the common sense to keep things a little more low key for the time being. Right now, the only good news is that the anti-video-games crowd haven't done a good job of grabbing the middle-ground either.
Not to flame the US judicial system, but thank god Jack Thompson will find it a lot harder to peddle his nonsense in this country! Firstly British law does not allow a lawyer to take a share of damages recieved, which removes the profit motivation for this sort of ambulance chasing.
Secondly our judges are appointed, not elected, which reduces the chance that a judge will play this for the crowd, and support this boneheaded action to garner favour with the tabloid press.
What it does show is how poor the lobbying strength is of the videogames industry in the UK. Given that videogames make more money in this country than the music industry and the film industry times 2, Members of Parliament are still prepared to take cheap shots at it because this hasn't been made clear to them. If videogames don't put more money into schmoozing our policymakers they will continue to be seen as an unimportant minority interest, vulnerable to the vaguries of the tabloid press.
Now i read somewhere the other day that the average number of children killed every year in the uk is about 7 (even though people polled thought it was anywhere from 5 to 400) and this has been stable since the 50's. So what does that tell us? Soz for no link.. will have a look.
I got some impenetrable logic for the 'the game is not to blame' side of the fence.
the killer was a drug addict and doesn't seem to have ever even touched the game, which was found at the *victims* home.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
What seems to have been overlooked here, and something far more important than the game itself, is the BBFC Clasification of the game in question.
Over here in the UK, its Illegal (and pinishable by a big fine at least) to sell a BBFC rathed game to someone under the rated age. In this case, the game has an '18' certificate, which meants it is illegal to sell it to anyone under the age of 18 - something with retailers are typically very careful about.
Its the same system as used by the video/dvd retail industry, and not a requirement for games. if i remember correctly, only games which contain live action footage (which Manhunt does not) must be rated, but titles can be submitted for classification, which is something Rockstar do with all their titles.
The GTAs are 18 certificate, as is Manhunt, and if I recall correctly, MGS2 has a 15 certificate, while Eyetoy and Singstar have U (universal) and PG (Parental Guidance) certificates.
What is comes down to, is if the game DID have anything to do with the murder, then what were under-age children doing with a game that they cant buy, which is clearly labelled for adults?
In fact, to make matters worse, I remember hearing a quote somewhere that the favourite movie of the kid who comitted the murder is Scarface - something else that is 18 rated.
Its not like the rating system is new (its been in place for the last 20 years or so), or can be missed (distinctive red circle, which you see all over) - this is simply the case of the parents not paying attention at all.
Someone over 18 must have purchased the game, and someone was letting them play it, even though one of the first screens you see is a warning that it contains scenes of violence, and should not be viewed by minors!
This is fairly irrelevent now, but wither way, theres no excuse at all for it to be the game alone that is the cause here - its clearly lack of parenting.
The amazingly revolutionary thing about GTA was that it was just as violent as you were. If you wanted to hop in a car and drive around, completely obeying all traffic laws, and not participate in any violence, it was possible. Granted, there were some missions that required violence, but the missions themselves weren't required to actually play the game. Sure, you have the freedom to grab a baseball bat and beat a hooker to death, but you also had the freedon not to. The game is only as violent and depraved as the person playing it. So many of the heinous acts that people complain about in GTA weren't a necessary part of the gameplay, they were simply not prohibited by an artificial set of rules. It isn't the violence that people are afraid of, it's the freedom to commit violence and what the absence of restraint allows them to do when they don't feel like restraining themselves.
This sig has been stolen. Return it to its original user for a reward.
I loved Mortal Kombat... it was bad, but it really was tame compaired to this game... the violence presented in it was like KillBill.... it had pretty blood, it was comical since i have yet to see someone rip a spine out with their bare hands...
Manhunt disturbs me like that Nicholas Cage movie with the snuff film disturbed me... yeah the storyline might say you have to kill or be killed... but its killing for killings sake. And instead of going Doom or even Wolfenstien, they make it EXTREAMLY realistic... like they studied how people die when these things are done to them....
I liked the old GTA (not thrilled with the newer ones) but this game was just sick... and worse its VERY easy for little kids to get their hands on it, even with the M rating. Do I think that Rockstar should be destroyed... no not really, thats stupid. Do I think this game was a VERY dumb move on their part... yeah.
What surprises me more is that this game has barely made the news while BMXXX was all over it.... its so stupid that the US STILL has problems with tits but cutting a guys throat is cool.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."