The 17 year old that killed another because of Manhunt..

[Stompy]

These things piss me off to no end.

When is society going to start taking responsibility for their own actions? You can't point the finger and blame others for the rest of your life...

First off, the game is rated M. That's about all that needs to be done. As long as the chains ID those who appear to be under 18, there isn't a problem. If parents are buying this for their kids, then perhaps it's the PARENTS who should be sued by the game company for giving them bad press.

Second of all, if you can't suppress the urge to repeat things you experience in video games and you're of a reasonable age (especially 17), then you're an idiot and you have problems.

Simple solution to this: throw the kid in jail. If it's determined that the mother didn't raise her child properly (which is pretty obvious), then punish the mother as well.

But by all means, do NOT go after these video game companies; they've done nothing wrong. I enjoy playing games like Doom, Manhunt, and GTA. Provided they have the proper rating, there's nothing at all wrong with them.

The stupidity of people just baffles me to no end.

[stonegrody]

Just another case of bad parenting. Bad parents must point the finger at someone else in order to take the blame off of themselves. Makes me want to go to their house, toss some molotov cocktails through their window, steal their car, cruise around Vice City and randomly kill people...oh wait.

[Ripsaw]

Firstly, is there a link to the story you seem so bothered by?
I've heard virtually nothing of this. Every story I see concerning videogame violence is accompanied by screenshots of Doom 2.

Secondly, arguments are not won by calling the opposing party 'idiots', or 'stupid'. The only person you can count on in society to be responsible, is you.

[Stompy]

Here's the link:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/29/dixons_manhunt/

UK consumer electronics retail chain Dixons and games retailer Game have pulled the computer game Manhunt from its shelves after the parents of a murdered schoolboy blamed the title for their son's death.

Stefan Pakeerah, 14, was stabbed and beaten to death in a Leicester park in February. Warren Leblanc, 17, of Braunstone Frith, Leicester this week pleaded guilty to the lethal attack.

Pakeerah's parents alleged that Leblanc's fascination in the game, in which points are scored for committing grisly killings, had influenced his actions.

The victims father dubbed Manhunt "a manual for murder".

Dixons and Game today began removing Manhunt from its store shelves. Under UK law Manhunt must not be sold to anyone under the age of 18. Retailer W H Smith told the BBC that it was considering whether to continue stocking the title. Virgin Megastores, however, will continue to do so. "While we take a level of responsibility, ultimately, censorship decisions are up to the consumer," a spokesman said.

Computer games that depict 'realistic' imagery must be certified by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) before release. The BBFC today stood by its certification, which indicates that the game should only be sold to adults. UK retailers are bound by the law to ensure that games are only sold to buyers of an appropriate age.

Of course, nothing prevents an adult buying such a game on a juvenile's behalf. And some kids do get hold of pirate copies.

We've been here before. Computer games have been claimed to influence other adolescent murders, most notably the Columbine High School killings, which some observers blamed on an obsessive interest in Doom. More recently, Grand Theft Auto has been blamed for a road killing.

Influences are easy to claim, but direct causality is harder to prove, whether the alleged cause are violent computer games or equally violent movies. Two decades or more ago, it was Dungeons and Dragons that was felt to be at fault.

But for every child psychologist claiming violent imagery leads to violent actions, there's another who believes games and movies provide an outlet for aggression that might otherwise be directed toward other kids.

Certainly, the vast majority of game players, comic readers and movie viewers do not act out in the real world violent content they've consumed on a PC or DVD. ®

There's an interview on IGN with the lawyer who was appointed by the murderer's mother: http://ps2.ign.com/articles/536/536062p1.html?ui=watch

I don't think there's a better way to describe these people than "stupid" or "idiot". Probably "ignorant morons who can't swallow their pride and take responsibility so they try and ruin it for everyone else"

[Averett]

I don't understand why people would want to play a game where you earn points for killing people. What makes it fun?

[Stompy]

Same reason why games like GTA and Quake are fun.

Manhunt is awesome. You sneak around and snuff out members of the opposing gang.

More details here: http://ps2.ign.com/articles/440/440887p1.html

[Carno]

That game looks so badass. In fact, I think I'm going to buy it right now...

[Ripsaw]

Averett has asked a legitimate question. And she has received an answer that is tantamount to "Because.". I suppose that this may also be part of the gender divide, where girls are supposed to play with dolls, and boys get army sets and play cowboys and indians. Only these days, girls get sexualized faster, and boys get to play out fantasies not only in their own minds, but on screen.
I play games such as these myself for the story, much like an interactive book. I want to see why the main character in Manhunt has been selected by the filmmaker to act out in this snuff film. I want to see how the story progresses, and if the criminal is apprehended. I simply want to see what's next.

I play games such as UT2004 for competitive reasons. It's like a game of reflexive chess, or basketball without all the running. It is your skill against the skill of the other players. Sure. You get blown up into little pieces. But that's just eye candy.

I play games such as Diablo 2 for cameraderie, and improvement aspects. I play with several people I have never met in my entire life, and perhaps will never meet. Two of these people I do not even know the first names of. We have formed a cohesive group that works together to improve each of our characters. We trade items freely, and everyone contributes to the fund at one point or another. But this game is based on killing. Be it humans, skeletons, imps, ghosts, great big slug things, it is still killing.

I have been engaged in swords and sorcery fantasy for as long as I can remember. I have read about countless violent acts, seen hundreds of movies, and played hundreds of videogames. You may consider me desensitized. I disagree. I cannot watch Saving Private Ryan again. Ever. There is a scene in that movie that turns my stomach. I watched the Nick Berg video. I threw up. The comparison of video game violence to true violence is a horrifying one, for more than one reason. Separation of fantasy and reality is one of the distinctions of being sane.

Averett, I hope this answer is a bit better than "because".
Because that is what I thought of before I put some time into this.

[Stompy]

My answer wasn't a "because", but okay

I provided a link that could explain a lot better than I can, which includes detailed descriptions of what makes the game unique and suspenseful, etc and why fans of that particular genre would like it. Sounds like a pretty satisfactory response to the question! The thing is.. you gotta click the link and read.

Try answering "Why do people like PacMan"

[Averett]

Originally posted by Ripsaw
Averett, I hope this answer is a bit better than "because".
Because that is what I thought of before I put some time into this.

Thanks for the answer

And you too Stompy. I just don't get the blood and gore games. I dabble in Desert Combat (read: I suck at it but have fun playing) and I like the fact that you don't blow apart when you are hit by a tank.

[Ripsaw]

Same reason "Q-Bert" is fun.

http://psx.ign.com/articles/161/161432p1.html

I knew you knew I was going to do this.


Gamers would be held in better regard by non-gamers if they could speak their own minds on why they do the things they do. Relying on the review of one Douglass C. Perry for your explanation tells us nothing of why we consider these games entertaining. Notice I say 'we'.

Which is why it's rated M, for mature. If you're a worried parent, you should read this review and study perhaps some others and make an educated decision. You wouldn't let your kids watch an R-rated film, right? Right. Of course not. So, use your brains and do a little research instead of over-reacting. Manhunt is a violent videogame, but the only thing that's new about this violence is in the way it's presented. OK, sermon over.

This is the fourth to last paragraph of a five page review. IGN is targeted towards the exact same demographic as Manhunt, the 18-25 set who most likely do not have children. My fiance would not read through that review, let alone my mother. It is pre-judgemental, and slightly disturbing at times. Given the content matter and the 'hardcore target base" I would expect a review like this from IGN. Give this same game to a reviewer from Town & Country and you'll hear words like 'awful', 'disgusting', 'Would somebody think of the children!'. I think, that if someone can't figure out why they like to do something, they should re-examine it.

[Stompy]

Originally posted by Ripsaw
Same reason "Q-Bert" is fun.

http://psx.ign.com/articles/161/161432p1.html

Haha, I knew you were gonna do that Ah well, at least the person I responded to understood it without a problem

[Mr.Deflok]

I'm really into Doom 3 right now, in fact later today I plan on teleporting to Hell to face of with a Legion of Evil, wish me luck!

[Karby]

Originally posted by Ripsaw
Averett has asked a legitimate question. And she has received an answer that is tantamount to "Because.". I suppose that this may also be part of the gender divide, where girls are supposed to play with dolls, and boys get army sets and play cowboys and indians.

[off topic]...i never played with dolls . in fact, if i remember correctly, any barbie doll that came into my hands promptly had her head ripped off, and taked to the stove. i loved watching the hair burn.[/post]

[whocarz]

I played Manhunt for the first few levels, then promptly got bored. It's the same crap, over and over again. Sneak up to guy with weapon, kill guy with weapon, hope you don't get seen, rinse, repeat. Yawn. The violence was mildly graphic, but I've seen far worse real life violence, so I wasn't fazed in the least.

[bob32]

What proof is there that Manhunt actually influenced the kid? The article doesn't say how the murder took place, but I doubt he used a "plastic bag," "glass shard," or a "blackjack" to kill them (sorry, I'm not too far in the game). If he did kill the person that way, then either the game influenced him (and he has some mental problems and the parents should've done something) or he just used that as an excuse so he won't be seen as entirely at fault. More than likely, he played a game and eventually he killed someone.

And in the interview with IGN, the lawyer says the companies are at fault for marketing Manhunt directly to people under 17. It seems like just because it's a video game and involves killing, it's for little kids.

I forget where I read this and who said it but this seems like an appropriate time for it. "Video games dont influence our lives. If pacman influenced us we'd be runing around dark rooms munching on pills and listening to reptitive music."

[omega2K4]

Originally posted by whocarz
I played Manhunt for the first few levels, then promptly got bored. It's the same crap, over and over again. Sneak up to guy with weapon, kill guy with weapon, hope you don't get seen, rinse, repeat. Yawn. The violence was mildly graphic, but I've seen far worse real life violence, so I wasn't fazed in the least.

Ditto. After you kill 3-4 people, the game gets really fucking boring. Rockstar loves pumping out shit games as of late (Red Dead Revolver, Manhunt).

[panbert]

I saw this news article awhile back and decided against posting it cause I had posted a similar article recently.

Anyway, I quite liked Ripsaw's answer as to why "boys like their toys". Pesonally, I cannot explain in words why I enjoy video games, I just do. But after reading Ripsaw's explaination... yeah, I do agree with his reasons.

I don't disagree with the fact that media in general do affect us to some extent. The problem with blaming video games for real life violence is this : (i) why just blame video games when other forms of media (TV, books, movies, news etc) are so much more graphical? and (ii) how much influence do media really have? Is it enough to turn a balanced healthy mind into a sick perverted murdering psychopath? Or do it just give an already demented person ideas on how to express his/her sick fantasies.

Look at the example of copycat serial killers. Can you imagine if the copycat serial killers claim innocence and blame their crimes on the killers that came up with the ideas originally?
What if I start killing and butchering people and then say that it was all Jack The Ripper's fault? Does that mean I should not be held responsible for my crimes? Can I then sue Jack's descendants (if he has any) for huge sums of money?

[Mr.Deflok]

Looks like Manhunt's selling out in the UK:
http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ne...lling_out.html

Now I wonder why that could be... strange.

[MSD]

The problem is parents who let TV, movies, and games reaise their kids for them. If they sat down with the kid for a bit and talked to them, or taught them the difference between ficiton and reality, then kids would be able to leave the violence in the game rather than bringing it into their lives.

Can anyone guess why I haven't taken the sword off my wall and stabbed my family to death, or why I haven't picked up a gun and shot anyone who pissed me off, or just shot people for fun, despite the fact that I constantly play violent games and have done so for years? The simple fact is that my parents taught me that what I see on TV is not always real, I shouldn't try to imitate what I see just because it looked cool on TV, and although my mother doesn't particularly like violent games (serious understatement,) she taught me to keep fictiona and reality separate, and was around me enough while I was growing up that she knows I am mentally stable and capable of separating fiction from reality, just like she taught me when I was growing up.

If a parent doesn't spend enough time around a kid to realize that he's mentally unstable and unable to discern between fantasy and reality, the simple fact is, they're not doing their job as a parent.

Let's sum this up in case anyone forgot what I said:
1: Parents need to teach their kids right vs. wrong, reality vs. fiction, before allowing exposure to violent material.

2: Parents need to spend enough time parenting that they can spot problems before they get out of control.

Combine 1 and 2 into a simple statement, and you get: Parents need to do some parenting instead of blaming scapegoats when something goes wrong with their kids.

[Stompy]

That's another thing, it does boil down to parenting, but in this case... not really.

I could see if a kid smoked at 15 and society begged the question "How did this happen?" Well, if the parents smoked, then probably because the parent didn't teach the kid the proper dangers of cigarettes..

But killing... at 17, regardless of what parenting you had, you know damn well that killing is wrong. You KNOW damn well not to imitate things you see on tv. It's not like a natural instinct to see animated cartoon violence and then turn around with a conscious mind and make the choice to act that violence out on another person.

Looking at it from another point of view, people are always quick to blame the parents when in reality, the kid could've had perfectly normal parents and just made a stupid decision.

In response to a post above asking his method of killing, he used a hammer:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe...hunt.storeban/

[MSD]

Originally posted by Stompy
But killing... at 17, regardless of what parenting you had, you know damn well that killing is wrong. You KNOW damn well not to imitate things you see on tv. It's not like a natural instinct to see animated cartoon violence and then turn around with a conscious mind and make the choice to act that violence out on another person.

At 17, he is still a minor and the responsibility of his parents. Unless a psychological analysis showes that his parents were keeping an eye on him and he was still able to conceal his problems from his parents, I'm pointing my finger straight at them.

[Stompy]

Everyone, at some point as a teenager, did something stupid that they look back on and disapprove of.

Had I been caught for some of it, it would have been extremely unfair to point the finger at my parents, because honestly, they raised me just fine. There's other influences that society needs to be aware of. Sure, as a minor they are under the responsibility of the parents, but it's not so black and white. A person at 16 or 17 is their own person capable of making their own choices in life.

Would it have been a fair assumption to give full blame to your parents for any trouble you caused as a teenager? For me, hell no. Choices I made were my own and completely disassociated from anything my parents did to raise me. Just something to think about.

17 is a bit late. Technically, under law, he's the responsibility of his parents, but I know back when I was that age... there was absolutely no difference in my maturity at 17 as there was at 18, yet I was suddenly legal to do pretty much everything except drink.

Don't get me wrong, he is definitely a nutcase and something had to influence this behavior. I just find it funny that people (including myself) automatically blame parents when it probably isn't so black and white.

I think the question isn't so much "who got him the game" as it is "why the hell would someone that old imitate what they see?" I could see a 7 year old doing it, because at that point they're still incredibly young, but not 17.

In any case, I still think people need to stop pointing fingers and start taking responsibility for their own actions. It's silly that we as a society accept their excuses of "a video game made me do it". Please. It did not, you're just insanely immature and unable to discern reality from video games.

[cockmonger]

sorry if i butcher this quote
"thousands of people see lexus commercials. Not everyone the watches goes out and buys a lexus...but some do."
-bowling for columbine

that isn't to say that manhunt is to blame. in fact i too believe shitty parenting led to this. and maybe i'm alittle cold and desensitized but manhunt wasn't all that violent...i mean sure you could make a guys head look like swiss cheese with a shotgun but...ya know...its fake. manhunt was actually kind of boring...i don't see how it could inspire anyone to stab and beat someone to death...did this did sneak up behind the other person and "execucute him" stabbings and beat down occur for more fucked up reasons than a video game.

[Xiomar]

Originally posted by whocarz
I played Manhunt for the first few levels, then promptly got bored. It's the same crap, over and over again. Sneak up to guy with weapon, kill guy with weapon, hope you don't get seen, rinse, repeat. Yawn. The violence was mildly graphic, but I've seen far worse real life violence, so I wasn't fazed in the least.

The most boring game in my life.

[AxelF]

If we were to ban products that can make people with weak minds commit violent crimes we should focus on alcohol, not games.
Violient crimes are committed every minute under the influence of drugs, very rarely after playing games.

Kids should be shielded by their parents from exposure to violence, drugs, religion and porn. Their minds are not ready for stuff that messes with your brain. But we can't ban products that adults are free to consume.

[dover, ben]

Originally Posted by bob32

What proof is there that Manhunt actually influenced the kid? The article doesn't say how the murder took place, but I doubt he used a "plastic bag," "glass shard," or a "blackjack" to kill them (sorry, I'm not too far in the game). If he did kill the person that way, then either the game influenced him (and he has some mental problems and the parents should've done something) or he just used that as an excuse so he won't be seen as entirely at fault. More than likely, he played a game and eventually he killed someone.

This point is exactly along the lines I was thinking. Another point in the game is that the main character is killing out of self-defense. Everyone he kills is also trying to kill him. It's not like he's murdering innocent kids with no motivation.

The real thing is some people kill people. There's no good reason for it. Something isn't right about them. You can't explain why it happened, for some people there is no reason, no psychology behind where something went wrong that led to the point they killed. Some people are just not right in the head, missing out on basic instincts of compassion or whatever. But the other thing really is like bob pointed out, we don't know the details of the murder, we don't know if there was any petty motivation, money owed, kid stole his g/f, yada yada. Maybe the murderer just has a short fuse and lost control.

I think the point of the thread is basically it's petty, and pointless to try and blame video games.