h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Is Cludeo the greatest threat to civilisied society we have ever known?

Thought not. A happy family orientated game based around the grisely exercise of murder. That's okay, however if it's computer games we're talking about things get rather silly.

I rather hold to the view that if you are susceptable enough to actually *listen* to the voices coming out of the gogglebox, you weren't that stable to begin with.

or put another way. Which of these is the most dangerous? A violent video game, a sociopath and a gun? Whihc of these things do we choose to treat wth caution and fear? The game naturally. Particularly if you are equally susceptable to taking at face value the headlines in the reactionary wing of the news such as I saw grace the front of the Daily Mail last week on my morning trip through Tescos: "BAN THESE EVIL GAMES" It proclaimed echoing the call of a bereaved mother after the sad murder of a young man by his best friend.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/3934277.stm

Putting to one side the issue about adult rated content being in the hands of those below the age of 18 (and god knows I saw plenty of scary movies when I was small and I dont think games had an age rating back then..) I think it is a diversion to blame computer games, the real issue is not do computer games make a person kill - it's why do peole kill each other in the first place?

See, I have this funny notion that people have a choice how to act and ultimately responsibilty rests with them.

I read a heartbreaking article in the independent last week about the possible reasons behind the murder of Luke Walmsley by Alan Pennell who at only 16 year, stabbed and killed Walmsley. The article suggests that Alan was not able to ever resolve his grief over the death of his mother and turned that frustration and violenece outward with tragic results. The article made me sad not least because of the needless loss of life, but for how young-seeming the villain of the piece emerges to be. However, blame it on the death of his mother all you like, how did he get hold of the knife, how was his violent tendencies not picked up and arrested beforehand?

To drag this back on topic, Warren Leblanc, who murdered Stefan Pakeerah with a hammer or Alan Penell, both did what they did up to the point when they could have stopped and then decided to carry on. The guilt and the blame must lie with them. In LeBlanc's case hundred, thousands of people play that game all over the world and they all don't get it into their heads that it is okay to go out to rob and kill.

I think it is disingenuous nay cynical to blame computer games and exploititive of the media to perpetuate fear. When the "Manhunt" story came to light it was the lead story on ITV news that evening above the rumours about doping at the Olympic Games, which garnered the top spot at Channel 4. The next day the Daily Mail started it's firebrand campaign.

I maintain that the ills of society do not come in a square box marked "Playstation."


Discuss.


That article about Alan Pennell can be found here:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/story.jsp?story=545397

I can understand the mother's grief and anger at the murder of her son and why she has lashed out at PC games. I think I would do much the same myself if I was in her tragic position.

It is very easy for 18+ certified PC/video games to get into the hands of younger children, all it takes is an older sibling or relative to buy them and leave then lying around.

But it ~is~ up to the parents to ensure that unsuitable material, be it games, dvds, tv channels, books, magazines etc are kept well out of the way of inquisitive youngsters.

I have no idea what games or films the sons were watching at friends' houses, but I did try to make sure that games and films they watched at home were suitable. Yes, they did play games such as Resident Evil when they came out, I don't remember the son's ages, but late teens at a guess. They played the games quite happily, without it upsetting them or altering their behaviour. Resident Evil didn't half make me jump though, since the autotargeting option was removed with Codename Veronica, I never even got out of the prison

No2 son, at 21, finds Castle Wolfenstein too scary though and no longer plays!

Parents must take responsibility for raising their children and providing a suitable environment for them to live and play in. However we are living in a society where more violent and disturbing films, games etc are becoming acceptable. We seem to be becoming used to it, perhaps that is more disturbing.

Place a computer in a teenagers room, give them broadband, there is no longer such a thing as a rating that can be enforced. Taking the game out of the shops will not have any effect on the number of people playing the game, all that will happen is even more play it due to the increased publicity, and Rockstar makes less money as everyone takes the easy route of pirating it through downloading or a mate who has made a copy.

Following this using this specific game as a scapegoat, there are films that are the same or worse, but these are not being blamed this time round as a new scapegoat has been found.

I have not played this game myself, and don't see any specific appeal to want to, all i should need to do if I wanted, as I do not have the money right now, is just spend a few hours connected to the internet and pay with a slower page speed on hootoo.

Games don't incite or influence people towards committing a crime that they would not normally. Just as watching a horror film will not cause someone to go out and become a serial killer. If someone is going to do it, it will happen regardless of what games they play and films they watch. Though it may give them an idea for a way they hadn't thought of to do it, which will lead to the film getting the blame for someone seeking to blame something other than the criminal or their parents.

Back before the creation of moving pictures and video games, what did people blame when one human murdered another?

You can't really blame a computer game or a film or even a song played backwards (remember those American court cases? ) for the death of one person. But let's look at this in a rather different way.

Does the fact that games involving violence, murder, or treating people in very unpleasant ways are so popular and so prevalent and so *accepted* send a message to young kids at an impressionable age? Of course it bloody well does! We are all shaped by our environment, and if our environment includes games such as these being peddled as mainstream, then kids are going to be persuaded that human life is cheap, no matter what their parents may try and teach the. And no matter how much we may all throw our hands up in the air and wail 'But where were the parents?', there will always be parents who do not, and will not exercise control over their children and teach them right from wrong.

I don't agree with the thoughts of the parents of the murdered boy, that the game is solely responsible for their son's death, but it is a factor in a much broader picture. And the thing about statistics is that although 'one in a thousand' might seem pretty comfortable to live with, if you're that one, the statistics aren't 0.1%, they're 100%. That tends to change a person's mind about previously held views.

"Games don't incite or influence people towards committing a crime that they would not normally"
They may not incite, but they can certainly influence. It's not a matter of the game *telling* someone to do something, it's far more subtle than that. I'm no psychologist, and I don't have the smarts or the words to explain it adequately. I do however firmly believe that violent games, films, TV shows, etc breed an acceptance of violent behaviour in a culture. I reserve judgement for the time being on whether they should be banned.

>>I do however firmly believe that violent games, films, TV shows, etc breed an acceptance of violent behaviour in a culture<<

Well, the most irresponsible of these certainly inure people to the consequences of violence, making it all seem like harmless fun. Trouble is, you could say the same about television coverage of the Gulf War (actually, the first Gulf War especially, which spawned all kinds of videogame imitations).

That depends entirely on the quality of the reporting and the journalism, how matter-of-fact or sensationalist it is,how unbiased or partisan it is.

I didn't mean the journalistic coverage, so much as the 'live action' footage of cruise missiles and smart-bombs Norman Schwarzkopf used to trot out on a daily basis during the first Gulf War (shown direct, no commentary). It was more low-key in the recent war.

I'm in agreement with you there - it really did reduce the coverage to something approaching a PC game.

That reminds me, can I reference the Film Bowling for Columbine. That argued that it was the influence of the goverments actions on other nations and that influence on society rather than the games and films.

I read something about the latest tank designs recently, where they're operated by remote control by 'drivers' sitting miles away from the actual battle - this as a result of the US military's awareness that the most useful skills it can pick up and use these days are those mastered by kids playing videogames.

Clearly, the game and the reality get blurred in cases like this. So I'd say the problem with people becoming desensitised to violence doesn't just stem from games, films and so on - vastly more violent than they used to be certainly - but with politicians who actively encourage the blurring on the large scale (so that people are simply less and less affected by pictures of 'real' war) while jumping in to condemn it when it omes to the easier target of videogames and so on. Which just seems a bit hypocritical to me.

It's a bit like the argument, in the recent Gulf War, which deemed it inappropriate to show pictures of dead bodies, but entirely appropriate to show pictures of troops cheering as the explosions went off. Whereas the opposite is true: the obscenity is *not* showing the bodies, because it encourages the idea that the actions have no consequence.

Violence in games etc, fills the need left by the fact that violence isn't aceptable in society.

To start with: I bought Manhunt, played it to completion and enjoyed it a lot. I did so several months ago, after its initial release to excellent reviews and the initial "storm of media protest", including the news that it was banned completely in New Zealand (NZ = home to knee-jerk conservative idiots - now, where have I picked up *that* impression before?).

So... Dixons and Game, two of the main high street retailers, have decided to stop stocking the game in response to the latest "storm of media protest". Nothing to do with the fact that most of the copies it's selling now are second hand...

And... HMV, Play, and most of the other places where gamers buy their software are not making any changes to their stock. So if anyone wants this game, they'll be able to pick it up in HMV. Thus any concept that it's "banned" is spurious.

If I was the CEO of Rockstar games, I'd be rubbing my hands in glee and counting my stock options. A game which must have had significant production costs (not least the services of X-Men actor Brian Cox in the lead voice role), but which had had hardly any money spent on marketing, was getting a second lease of life on the front page of the tabloids almost ten months after its initial release. This is bound to lead to a surge in sales as people rush to see what all the fuss was about. Interestingly, the "shocked" newspaper report in the Mail was lavishly illustrated with screenshots showcasing the impressive graphics. Sadly, the actual text had been written by someone who had never actually seen the game, let alone played it. This should not be surprising from a newspaper which publishes film reviews by reviewers who have demonstrably never seen the film they're reviewing.

The mother of the murdered boy can hardly be expected to be rational in her current state. It is to be hoped that when her grief passes she is able to see the pointlessness of what she's proposing.

So, having dispensed with the objections: what is the issue?

I am not a prude. I enjoy violent videogames. Is there any finer pleasure in life than picking up a whore, driving her somewhere quiet, f**king her, then when she leaves your car, going after her with a baseball bat and beating her to death and taking your money back? Anyone who has played and enjoyed GTAIII or Vice City knows the answer to that one.

But...

Manhunt gave me pause. Its game mechanic - what you actually *do* - is excellent, a mix of stealth and all-out action, with many clever twists. In execution (!) it is of a type with games like Metal Gear Solid and Splinter Cell. But game mechanics are not all there is - there is plot. And Manhunt's plot is unlike anything that has ever appeared in a videogame before.

The nearest thing I can think of to it in terms of "feel" is Bret Easton Ellis's "American Psycho". It is unremittingly amoral, unapologetically graphic, and absolutely relentless in its creation of a world of violence and despair. Certainly, the characters one is called upon to kill are, by their definitions, the worst kind of scum imaginable - people who, as a hobby, hunt and kill other humans and record the hunts for sale as snuff movies, to a select clientele which includes people who can ensure the law turns a blind eye. The creators of the game have gone to some lengths to make this scenario seem realistic.

I have two contrasting reactions to the game: on the one hand, it is heart-thumpingly exciting, and the atmosphere generated by the plot and Cox's acting performance contributes to that. It is alternately a masterpiece of suspense and a rollercoaster adrenaline rush. On the other hand, quite often through the game I found myself literally amazed, almost unable to believe what I was seeing, and wondering whether I should really be being entertained by this stuff.

And that's the point - this game was a masterpiece of adult entertainment. It forces the mature player to question their own reactions. Few games achieve this level of engagement. GTAIII, for instance, with its cartoon whores, never approached anything like this - I certainly never stopped playing *that* for a moment to wonder whether I should be enjoying it.

But... what if you're NOT an adult? Therein lies the problem. And you can't just say "well, I saw scary movies when I was a kid, it did me no harm". There is a fundamental difference between the experience of passively sitting and watching a film, even one as violent and amoral as "American Psycho", and actually being required to engage in actions worse than those portrayed in that film.

Indeed, the game requires the completist player to carefully plot how to kill in the most gruesome way possible, again and again, with a variety of weapons ranging from a plastic bag (asphyxiation and a broken neck), through knives and machetes (stabbings, to begin with, beheadings if you're patient) to guns (graphic headshots). This interaction requires the player to identify with the game's protagonist in a way a film does not, indeed cannot.

As a result, I find myself deeply troubled.

However, the conclusion I come to is this: *I* am an adult. I choose to consume this type of material. I *enjoy* this kind of material (although "enjoy" in this instance is possibly not exactly the right word...). I absolutely reject the idea that someone else should have the right to prevent me from enjoying it, simply because *they* didn't like it, or worried about the effect it might have on people who are, in any case, barred by law from buying it.

The fact is there are laws to prevent the sale of this sort of stuff to children. Let them be enforced. Let parents look after their children. And please, parents, don't give me that old "you can't watch them all the time" line. I didn't ask you to breed, and neither did your children. It's your JOB to watch them all the time. The fact you can't is YOUR problem, not mine.

So, unsurprisingly, in the end, I am against censorship. Quite apart from anything else, in today's world, it simply won't work - as we've seen in this case. There are MILLIONS of extant copies of that game out there. Anyone who wants to can get it.

And thanks to the Daily Mail, no doubt many thousands more now will be doing.

I'm always vaguely baffled at the way the newspapers give this kind of free publicity to computer games. Rockstar in particular seem to have a mainline to the Daily Mail editor. I'm surprised they're even bothering to advertise their next game - the Mail will be coming down on its mix of gangsta rappers and drug dealers in due course, no doubt.

H.

Lets remember that the indivdual concerned was seventeen years old, old enough to...

Get married

Drive a car

Join the army and kill people for real..

Does anyone honestly believe that he's not old enough to know that when you kill people it's for real?

yes you can join the forces from 16, however to do so while under 18 you require parental consent.

The children that killed James Bullger were what 9 when they killed him? That's old enough to know that when you kill someone it is wrong, permanent and has [or should have consequences]. A child doesn't need to have right and wrong spelled out to them, the ability to tell them apart is acquired in much the same way as language is. though slightly later in childhood. A childs idea of right and wrong is much more rigedly defined than an adults, they don't really see shades of grey...

At least that's my opinion, could be completely wrong.

I'm not sure 9 is old enough to understand it.
Most other European countries don't seem to be sure either as they place the age at which children can be tried for a crime higher than the UK or US do.

I think as people get older they seem to forget just what they were capable of understanding at that sort of age. I know I'm not much older than that pair of killers and at the time was appalled that people were making excuses for them because of their age.

Certainly the UK's system of dealing child criminals is deeply flawed. I think we have alot to learn from Scandinavia. But I don't think we should emulate them completely.

The US, gah, they executed a kid for his s'posed crimes. That I think is outrageous. Not that I don't think that the death penalty is outrageous generally. But a child criminal surely has greater potential for being reformed and rehabilitated, unless is a psychopath, in which case you can't do much for them apart from keep them away from temptation.

At that sort of age a couple of years can make a lot of difference and individuals can vary greatly. I agree that some sort of rehabilitation was neccessary. Certainly their actions couldn't be ignored. So long as you're not suggesting that they should've been tried as adults I don't think our views are too far apart (on this subject at least).

With the Bulger case, there was a similar outcry, on that occasion about videos ('Child's Play 3' I think) which the two murderers had been watching.

As a consequence, there was a tightening up of video certification. Which was why you couldn't watch 'Reservoir Dogs' on video for a few years afterwards.