Manhunt game withdrawn from UK Store

[Major Fubar 0]

If we apply the same reasoning, alcohol should be banned, just in case someone underage gets access to it - and we all know how well prohibition works...

[maddogx 13]

Quote[/b] ]if parent's did a decent job of teachning their children right from wrong, it woudn't even matter if the kids did have access to R-rated video games.

Exactly.

Quote[/b] ]and we all know how well prohibition works...

Yeah. It's just like drugs, they're illegal and of course no one takes them...  

Perhaps we should ban war and violence and sex and heavy metal! Then the world would be a better place for everyone!

[Heatseeker 0]

If we apply the same reasoning, alcohol should be banned, just in case someone underage gets access to it - and we all know how well prohibition works...

Good Lord, please no .

What would come next? weapons? .

[Major Fubar 0]

I'm more for banning of weapons than I am for banning of games...

[maddogx 13]

Oh yes I forgot weapons and alcohol. They should be banned too just to be on the safe side!

[Pathy 0]

I'm with Baron et al on this one, its bad parenting through and through. When people have a child, they take on the responsibility....if you cannot handle the responsibility, dont have a child. Simple.

Nobody else is responsible for the child, its nobody elses seed....:) . There probably is no easy solution, alot of parents are too selfish, (ie, giving kids games to shut them up) and whatever you do, its not going to change that.

[xawery 0]

Hey there people,

I think we're talking past each other here. It is indeed true that ultimately, parents bear the full responsibility for their (underaged) children's actions. This is not a debatable matter, that's how the law of liability works.

Acknowledging this does not, however, solve the problem. Sure, we can all smugly claim that it's the parents' sole responsibility and just leave it at that, but that won't help us solve the problem. There are more powerful and tacit factors at play here than mere parents' laziness.

Upholding a standard of living, for example. Once you've reached a certain level, you're not prepared to go back. The whole western world (sorry for the generalisation) seems to be mesmerised by the goal of increased productivity. The interesting thing is that while the US exhibits higher average productivity, it has attained it only by working longer hours, not being more productive. Productivity per capita is higher in (continental) Europe. What does this all mean, in the end? Less time to spend with your family.

Another matter is the dire state the European pension systems are in. They are completely unsustainable, and the current generation is going to have to bear the cross of the underpriced pension premiums of the nineties. What does this result in? Longer working hours, same pay. Already a 40 h working week is being implemented in the collective labour agreements in the Netherlands (it used to be 36), without a raise in wages.

In summary: the trend is more working hours, less/same wages. It's not hard to see how that is going to impact 'quality family time'. And it has nothing to do with laziness.

As Balschoiw (I believe) mentioned, there is a growing information asymmetry between the parents and the children. In a world of ever advancing technology, who is going to be the first to comprehend it? The ones with more spare time on their hands, i.e. the children. Already there is a hard-to-bridge gap between what the children know about computers and the knowledge the parents possess. Believe me, once you actually start earning bread to support your family, you will find yourself very hardpressed for time, and learning the ins and outs of the pc will not be on top of your list. After all, you could be spending this time with your family

In other words, while technically it is the parents responsibility to know what they're children are doing on the pc, it's simply not at all feasible to monitor their activity 24/7.

Before anybody chips in chanting the "parent to blame, censorship bad"-mantra, allow me to state something clearly - the purpose of my argument is not to absolve the parents from their responsibilities, but to put the conditions under which the parents are forced to fulfill these responsibilities in a more realistic light.

What am I saying with this? Censorship is not the way, not only because it's principally wrong, but also because it's impossible. Unless you run a totalitarian state without access to the internet, no form of prohibition will work.

Also, as has already been stated numerous times video games, as any other form of media, are capable of influencing an individual. That individual however must be mentally unstable already to act upon such influences.

What we thus need to focus upon is why that individual was in such a poor mental/emotional state in the first place. One is inclined to say: because of his upbringing, thus pointing to the parents - the circle is full.

Seemingly I have said nothing new in this post. But the point we are missing is that it is unrealistic to place the full burden of and responsibility for the upbringing on the parents. The way our society is structured (mandatory education etc.) simply prevents the parents from supervising their children all the time, EVEN if they would be available 24/7. Put differently, there are other parties in our society who need to accept their responsibility for our youth (gah I'm starting to sound conservative...). I'm usually loath to say things like 'families are the cornerstones of our society' and 'the youth is the future of our nation' or similar rightish slogans, but that does not prevent me from acknowledging that upbringing is important, children/teenagers are (on average) very impressionable, and that parents can't pull it off alone.

Does this solve anything yet? No. But I hope this point of view will help us come out of our respective trenches and look at the discussion from a different perspective. It really isn't a dichotomous choice of censorship - no censorship.

regards,

Xawery

[stevevcb 3]

My parents never supervised me 24/7, they brought me up to know what you do and what you don't. It's not a matter of banning this or banning that, it's a matter of educating people into using the responsibly. Example:

Last night I had five drinks. One was a pint of bitter, one was a single Southern Comfort. The next was a double Southern Comfort. The one after that was a quadruple Southern Comfort, then I had another double. After being sick on a girl's shoes and apologising profusely in the taxi all the way home, I realised that drinking the best part of half a bottle of Southern Comfort in under an hour on an empty stomach is a silly, silly thing to do. I won't be doing it in a rush again, even if my mates all drunk about twice as much and were much less gone than me (they're taller, y'see ). Now, my parents let me drink in the house (most of my preferences are down to drinking what they've drunk over the years), under the premise of letting me get used to alcohol and finding my limit. I think I found it and threw up on it last night. I just remember my dad patting me on the back as I threw up in the kitchen sink and saying "You're the son of a squaddie alright" and hearing my guts churning.

Now, a couple of years ago my cousin (let's call him Chris, that being his name and all), who wasn't allowed to drink in the house and who lived out in the sticks went to a party with his mates. He drunk about eight bottles of Bacardi, four pints and an entire bottle of Bells whisky. Chris then proceeds to wake up in hospital on an IV after a good stomach pumping. As soon as he came round, his parents gave him the bollocking of a life. He never heard the last of it. Now, he goes out the next week and drinks twice as much, and ends up back in hospital with alcohol poisoning.

It's all about educating people as to the effects of their actions and letting them get on with things, not watching their every movement. Most people will get it and not do wrong. It's more down to how you were brought up than the kids at school, unless you're the kind of weak-minded sap that'll do something because his mates were doing it.

[xawery 0]

Heh, Kooky, I think the trouble began when you decided to drink Southern Comfort in the first place...

*YECH*

However, you are right in saying that upbringing is not synonymous to supervising. If you pass onto your children a set of universal principles to follow they *should* be able to make sound decisions based on those principles. Please note the emphasis on 'should'. Now, let us look at what you yourself have said:

Quote[/b] ] (...) unless you're the kind of weak-minded sap that'll do something because his mates were doing it.

How many strong-willed, independant teenagers do you know? There were precious few of those in my time (which is quite recent, dammit!). Of course individual experiences don't really count as proof, but as scientific evidence points out - teenagers are very impressionable, so ALL stimuli are bound to influence the development of a young human. An average child spends two thirds of a day outside his home (school, sports club etc.)...

My point is, while the parents OBVIOUSLY play an enormous part in the upbringing of a child, the environment as a whole shapes the individual. Don't blame it all on the parents.

Just a last minute example - my upbringing has always been of the goody-goody/polite/respectful type, but my behaviour certainly changed when I moved to a different school (country even...) at the age of twelve. In the original situation, violence was commonly accepted as a valid method of resolving conflict. In the new situation it was unheard of. Nothing had changed in the way my parents were bringing me up, but the change of environment changed my behaviour. That's one of the factors I'm talking about.

There is more to tell, but now I must be off!

/edit - style amendments

[bn880 5]

Quote[/b] ] (...) unless you're the kind of weak-minded sap that'll do something because his mates were doing it.

How many strong-willed, independant teenagers do you know?

Actually the real translation of this is: how many young loners do you know. At least to people of that age.

[bn880 5]

If we apply the same reasoning, alcohol should be banned, just in case someone underage gets access to it - and we all know how well prohibition works...

It will be banned, just give us time. Cigarettes are first though, also give it time. hehe

LOL

Balschoiw has made the problem clear, the solution is not purely banning games for sure, but it is also not assigning blame. Unfortunately, you can blame the parents until you are blue in the face, or dead, and nothing will change. Points have been made already, I'm not going to repeat them.

Edit: Sorry I should somehow merge the two posts, but I don't have the means.

[Placebo 29]

Personally I think there are many factors needed to provide the balance with certain parties responsible in varying degrees, certain things must be restricted from certain groups, for example adult themed films shouldn't be watched by children, I don't care what anyone says, sitting a child in front of something like the Exorcist is going to mess them up and that would be a failing on the parent. If the parent fails in that regard then they can be prosecuted as the law says an 18 movie cannot be watched by someone under that age, if they do watch it then someone is legally liable, whether that be the cinema for letting them in, the video store for letting them rent it or the parent for letting them watch it.

[Konyak! 0]

Xcuse me is this has been pointed out already, but isn't it a bit silly for many to say that games don't affect peoples actions, yet the same people will bragg about how such and such a game  is being used as a training tool for police and military units?

That said, there obviously needs to be something wrong with the individual sense of reality and/or his upbringing.  Othervise we'd all need to fear our men in uniform who have been trained to do usefull things like killing a man without staining the carpet.

I'm sure some of you are old enough to remember a movie called The Clockwork Orange, by Stanley Kubrik.  I believe it may have been the first movie to be linked with violent acts, indeed said to have inspired the acts.   It involved a group of young men, a small gang, beating up old homeless men.  In that case, the relationship to the movie was very obvious and undeniable, but the movie did not create the violence it simply directed it.  The gang or gangs that copied these beatings were already gangs of stupid impressionable violent young men, that would have done something else violent anyway.

 

The important point was though, that the movie, allthough in a reverse way, glorified the gang.  It focused on the power they had, the fear they invoked and they were funny and cool.  Something alot of young men that considered themselves part of a gang, did NOT need to see.  I think this is the part we need to look at, as it's the one that directly counters the lessons our parents tried to teach us.  

Do some people feel that since someone made a movie or a game that shows wrong things in a cool or light way, that it clashes with their conditioning that it's a no no?  "Why would someone make a simulation of a killer, if it's so wrong?  Why is such a thing sold in stores, if it's so absolutely not to be done, why tempt it? Why entertain us with the feeling that we're doing it?" this kid could be thinking.

Now, I have not played Manhunt, but I'll wager that the character that the player plays, is feared by it's victims?  That perhaps he has funny one liners and is perhaps even rather cool?  If not, I'm way off line, but if so, there's a lot of disgruntled teenagers out there who would play that game for those reasons alone, not to see how creatively he can kill his next victim.  (sorry, I just can't for the life of me understand why people would even play a game like Manhunt    )

I am very much on the responsible parents wagon, but I'm just saying that sometimes a teen is very good at hiding his frustrations and his nature, out of shame or pride.  It's understandable in cases like that, when they find out he was so unhappy, and susceptable, to feel like their kid was poisoned by someone else, someone who was in contention for their kids upbringing.  

I think many need to realize that simply because parents are called parents, they aren't the only parents the young soul has.  We've all heard the term "He was raised by the TV" to which most people go "ooo, that's terrible" but to which I'd rather say "Which channel?"  

I'm interested in knowing how many of you, if you had a young teen that you were confident was a nice young boy, would let them play a game like Manhunt or some other demented game?   Think about it.  Wouldn't you rather he was playing something like Flashpoint?

Konyak

[red oct 2]

well thats a tad bit diffent. simulators used for training like VSB1 have a purpose and are intended for a certian user.

Quote[/b] ]Now, I have not played Manhunt, but I'll wager that the character that the player plays, is feared by it's victims? That perhaps he has funny one liners and is perhaps even rather cool? If not, I'm way off line, but if so, there's a lot of disgruntled teenagers out there who would play that game for those reasons alone, not to see how creatively he can kill his next victim.

not exactly, your more of a anti-hero who was on death row and your execution was staged by a snuff-film director. you now end up forced into working for this movie maker hunting down street gangs, white superpremesists, militias,physco paths and a corrupt police force. nowhere in the game do you murder anybody innocent.

Quote[/b] ] (sorry, I just can't for the life of me understand why people would even play a game like Manhun

well, cause its fun.

[Placebo 29]

Manhunt struck me as a one trick pony with a trick that wasn't particularly clever

[Konyak! 0]

Quote[/b] ]well thats a tad bit diffent. simulators used for training like VSB1 have a purpose and are intended for a certian user.

Missing my point.  I was pointing out that some games are so realistic that, allthough games, they can be seen to have similar effect as a simulator or training tool.  Have you never thought about if you got really good at staying alive in Flashpoint missions, that you may have a better chance of staying alive in a real battle environment?  I've seen tests done to see if people who race online races fair better when put to the test in racing school.. stuff like that.

Quote[/b] ]not exactly, your more of a anti-hero who was on death row and your execution was staged by a snuff-film director. you now end up forced into working for this movie maker hunting down street gangs, white superpremesists, militias,physco paths and a corrupt police force. nowhere in the game do you murder anybody innocent.

Ok, so it's like Punisher: The game.  I must admit, the way people were talking about it, it was aimless killing of civillians.

Konyak

[stevevcb 3]

Yeah, if the whole murdering-people-with-plastic-bags thing had been a tiny little detail in a big, innovative game it would have been kind of interesting. But when the point of playing is just to kill people with househole objects... well, you could play a Flash game that deep!

EDIT:

On Konyak's post about training tools etc.

Racing cars is about reflexes, and games are all about hand-to-eye co-ordination and reflex actions. For example, people who play a lot of shooters and the like usually have better hand-to-eye co-ordination. However, clicking a mouse button while looking at a screen with rifle sights on it does not constitute instruction someone how to shoot. I can shoot the nose hairs off an enemy trooper at 100m with a pistol in OFP, but the few times I've fired a gun of any sort, I've been a crappy shot. Plus, the AI in OFP don't react as well-drilled, professional soldiers would, and they certainly don't respond to things that a soldier would. Saying that playing OFP for three years will make you more likely to survive a battle is a bit daft, it's like saying that playing Falcon 4.0 will make you adept at flying jet aircraft or that playing Baldur's Gate will make you a wizard. Besides, there are very few games that are anywhere near realistic. For example, OFP is a reasonably accurate game when it comes to simulating a combat situation, but it doesn't simulate a million and one things. For example, can you hear enemy troops snapping twigs in the woods as they walk over them? Is there a fatigue model? Can you peek around corners? Does a night attack during a full moon differ in any major way to a night attack with cloud cover?

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

As I've said before, I am on a military shooting team, and have been on similar teams for years. Firing a weapon in a game, even one as realistic as flashpoint, is absolutely nothing like firing it IRL, not to mention everything else you need to know how to do (reloading etc.)

People can claim that the poor parents shouldn't be held responsible for not caring about their children all they like, but at the end of the day it is their responsibility. How do we change society for the better? Stop making stupid fucking lawsuits blaming other people (ie games companies.) All that is needed is a few judges presiding over such lawsuits to say

"No, sorry, they are YOUR children, do your job, case dismissed and a fine for wasting my valuable time."

For the fiftieth time: being responsible for children doesn't entail being with them 24 hours a day.

Especially in the case of parents who blame games that THEY bought for their children.

The solution is to make parents aware that if their kid goes awol, THEY will be held responsible. At the moment they don't care, because they won't be.

[Pathy 0]

Amen.

[Major Fubar 0]

If we apply the same reasoning, alcohol should be banned, just in case someone underage gets access to it - and we all know how well prohibition works...

It will be banned, just give us time.  Cigarettes are first though, also give it time.    hehe

LOL

Balschoiw has made the problem clear, the solution is not purely banning games for sure, but it is also not assigning blame.  Unfortunately, you can blame the parents until you are blue in the face, or dead, and nothing will change.  Points have been made already, I'm not going to repeat them.

Edit: Sorry I should somehow merge the two posts, but I don't have the means.

If it was purely a problem of preventing any possible negative reaction to a game, I would agree with you.

But by banning games you are impinging on the rights of millions of responsible and well balanced individuals who will never get to play the game.

I have seen more violent fights erupt from playing poker or Monopoly than I ever have over video games ...do we ban playing cards and Monopoly, just in case 0.001% of the population might have a psychotic episode triggered by playing them?

If we banned everything that might cause harm to people when used irresponsibly, or used by someone with an unhinged mind, we might as well go back to swinging in trees and wearing animal furs. Actually - we couldn't wear furs, because you would need a flint knife to skin the animal.  

For me a good example is cars - how many thousands, or hundreds of thousands, people die or are seriously injured worldwide in auto accidents each year? Why is noone calling for the banning of cars? They are not a "neccessity" - people can walk where they are going, or catch a bus, or ride a bike. And kids without licenses do get access to cars and use them irresponsibly... The reason cars aren't banned is it would be outrageous to punish the rights of the vast majority because a minority can't use their cars responsibly, or allow them to fall into ireesponsible hands.

No, you can't unliaterally blame the parents, but it also is wrong to punish the vast majority over the actions of a tiny minority. That would be like if every time someone broke a rule on these forums if we shut off everyone's access for 24 hours.

[pandalefou 0]

the parents are responsible

[John C Flett 0]

Actually Konyak, Clockwork Orange was withdrawn in this country after a particularly brutal attack in which a group of men sang ( singing in the rain as I remember ) while gang raping a nurse. It was a very sensational case at the time and the link to many people was obvious. Of course it was also obvious to a lot of people that the culture was rife with sexist and violent ideas and the film probably was only responsible for the singing, not the rape.

Anthony Burgess, the author has made some pretty intelligent comments about the link between his work and real life violence which I wish I could source. He was a hugely intelligent man and deeply cynical about the media sensationalism.

Just to add to the cynicism I read that 'Manhunt' has just become one on the best selling games in the UK despite some chains pulling it. Like we couldn't have seen that one a mile off. Also the parents of the murder victim are apparently bringing a 50 million dollar lawsuit against Sony and Rockstar.

I won't complain about them. They're obviously upset and need to blame somebody. I do suspect a very greedy, manipulative lawyer is somewhere spinning this whole thing for the basest reasons.

Lastly, as a case of bad timing, from the New PC Zone which came out at the end of last week.

"Proper certification means that adult titles, like Manhunt, aren't played by children. The upshot is more adult content all-round and less hysteria from the tabloids"

If only.

[Placebo 29]

IIRC ACO wasn't technically banned there but was withdrawn by Stanley Kubrik who refused to allow it to be shown again?

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/08/03/news_6104067.html[/url] @ Aug. 03 2004,16:31)]

"Murder by PlayStation" case takes twist

UK police find Rockstar's action game in the victim's home, raising questions about parents' allegations.

New developments may stir things up in the recent allegations that Manhunt had inspired the murder of a 14-year-old boy in the UK. Local police announced today that they had indeed found a copy of the action game, but it was found in the victim's bedroom.

The development could raise several questions concerning Mr. and Mrs. Pakeerah's claims, such as how did their son come into possession of the "M"-rated game and who bought it for him. However, such questions are probably irrelevant to the case, according to police. “We haven’t connected the game with the murder...the motive was robbery," said local police spokesperson Narinder Pooni.

The games-cause-violence story sent the UK media into a frenzy last week. The Daily Mail lead the charge, running the headline "Murder by PlayStation" and starting a sensational campaign to ban violent games. Pooni stated that the police had already announced that the game was not involved in the murder, but that "some sections of the media chose to ignore it."

By Benjamin Golze -- GameSpot

POSTED: 08/03/04 04:32 PM PST

[John C Flett 0]

Quote[/b] ]IIRC ACO wasn't technically banned there but was withdrawn by Stanley Kubrik who refused to allow it to be shown again?

Yes, spot on. Essentially he just lost patience and instructed it to removed from the UK.

Not what I was looking for but heres an interesting Burgess quote to throw into the mix

Quote[/b] ]Anthony Burgess

Delinquency

Violence among young people … is an aspect of their desire to create. They don't know how to use their energy creatively so they do the opposite and destroy.