Rockstar’s Manhunt blamed for copycat murder

This is just getting ridiculous now. Some sick and sadistic 17 year old murders a friend and expects to get off lightly because it was a 'Video Games fault' This really makes me sick to the stomach, mainly because I know that the non gaming public will accept it as that and in a few weeks time they will draw lawsuits up against Rockstar.

In this case I think the major offender isn't the retailer or the game. Its the parents. They allowed they son to buy and play this game. Sure they probably have no knowledge of games etc but perhaps they should take notice of what their under 18 son likes to do from time to time. Perhaps they would have found a worrying pattern to his activities and found what had mentally scarred him.

I have to admit, I'm not overly impressed with the direction Manhunt went in. Its a bad game and it is overly violent in my opinion and crosses the line in alot of ways. But I own the game and I have played it as well. Hell I've been playing violent games since I was 14. Have murdered or attacked anyone yet? No. Do I want to attack anyone in anyway? No.

It did seem a little farfetched when DOOM was blamed for 'Columbine' style shootings in the USA, but there is clearly a growing problem that needs to be addressed with violence in games, especially as graphics become more and more 'realistic'.
A ratings system which is not enforced is pointless, even though kids who want to get these games will find a way, there has to be a working system in place.

Don't get me wrong, I love (some) violent games, but I'm 30.
There are countless statistics to prove that depictions of violence and sex can affect young children, pornography is also directly linked to rape and abuse of women, but these facts are usually sidelined over arguments about 'free speech' and comments like 'people were violent before videogames/movies too'.

What would help a little more than a ratings system is developers/publishers and especially parents showing more responsibility. The amount of times I've seen a parent buying GTA or some other 'adult' game for their 11 year old simply baffles me.

So his parents knew that he was obsessed with a murder-sim that he was not legally allowed to play? Surely the court won't let that go unnoticed? Also, I'd wager that he had some pre-existing problems. If the parents knew of (or suspected) any, they have to question why they bought him the game. In fact, they should perhaps do that anyway, as should anyone that purchases an 18-rated game for a child.

As for the issue with magazines, I wholeheartedly agree. Look at Gamesmaster, which ran Manhunt as a cover game for it's September 2003 issue. Looking at their "GMpals" section, lots of the readers seem to be 10-15 year olds. I understand they can't simply ignore it just because it's for their older readers, but surely some form of warning for parents is in order? The line on the front cover simply reads "It's sick. It's twisted. You're going to love it!". "Warning: Brutal first shots" simply sounds like marketing spiel rather than a serious warning. However, this makes it sound as if the magazines are entirely to blame, which is wrong.

Kids are going to see this, not understand quite how serious the content is, and they're going to ask for the game. A good parent is going to look at the BBFC rating and say "No chance in hell", but what of the parents who think that games can't possibly shock or offend because they're not real? We've moved beyond the days of Mortal Kombat's pixellated gore, and there's a genuine reason for the ratings on the box now - this is a message that desperately needs to be delivered to parents. So part of the blame lies with the parents who don't take gaming seriously still.

Perhaps it's time for both the industry and those opposing it to make some compromises?

Perhaps moving the age rating up from 18 to 21 might help a little. Also big clear red labelling about " This game is for adults only and anyone who sells it to a minor or does not ask for proof of age before selling will get in trouble. Kind of like the warning label that graces many music albums and singles with explicit lyrics.

Only problem is that mail ordering and online shopping shoot straight through the loop whole. Banning them clearly isn't the answer to the problem. There is also still the stigma attached to gaming, that only kids play when that's changed and it's now anyone.

I expect the day will come, when you buy a game like Manhunt, you'll have to sign an agreement saying that whether the game is for an adult or minor to play, and that buying it you can't come back crying wolf when something goes wrong, and your child goes on a killing spree, which you will receive a signed and dated copy of also. This way Rockstar etc, and the game retailer are covered, and we would only have ourselves and bad parenting to blame. It's only a matter of time.

I think the games industry is societies modern scapegoat, because unlike films and music they sell loads but aren't consumed by as many people and then become misunderstood, I noticed they said the chap played Manhunt, but most people who own a PS2 also own many DVDs, but I doubt if they went through his DVD collection. Everyone who owns a PS2 will be a possible target.

UPDATE: I just heard that Dixons have removed Manhunt from sale, so the ball has already started rolling though it won't make a bit of difference. Even if it's a crap game the media is now gonna make people want it even more, if not to play as a collectors item. You can still get Child's Play trilogy and this will be no different in a year.

>Perhaps it's time for both the industry and those
>opposing it to make some compromises?

On this I totaly agree, however as long as the compromise doesnt end up something like peopel under 18 are only allowed to play the tweenis revisited 5. :S

Anyway i think the blame for this can be spread to the developers, magazine advertising and parents who just dont care. Well i say dont care but i think the ratings arnthat clear expecialy on the pegi rating its not greatly clear so in my opinion it should be on the front like movie certificates. I know this does not apply to manhunt or GTA as they have a bbfc rating or something to that effect. But after that it is down to the shops they should not sell these games to a parent if there child is in the shop. I have seen this many times.
Son ' mum can i have this please'
Mum 'i dont know its an 18'
Son 'Yea but its not that bad i mean its a ps2 game, its not realistic like a movie'
Mum ' Ok then i see your point'

then they just buy it, that is as simple as it is i mean i once bought tiberian sun by saying my mum was waiting outside, I had to do this because some shop assistant didnt belive me age and wouldnt allow me to purchase it.

this kid is 17??? yes and the rating on the game is 18 right??

he technically shouldnt be allowe to play it as it has already been deemed too old for him..

Just to clarify, it's not the defendant claiming the game made him do it, it's the mother of the victim. Personally, I smell the distinct whiff of lawsuit against Rockstar on the wind, rather than outright indignation.

Joji wrote:

>Perhaps moving the age rating up from 18 to 21
>might help a little. Also big clear red labelling
>about " This game is for adults only and anyone
>who sells it to a minor or does not ask for proof
>of age before selling will get in trouble. Kind
>of like the warning label that graces many music
>albums and singles with explicit lyrics.

Thing is, games are no more realistic than films, and are rated by the same board. If they're rated by the same board, the same criteria should apply - if we get a 21 for Manhunt, by rights we should have 21-rated videos, too. As for the warning, that "18" should give people a clue that it's for adults only.

Fair enough about the certification, but the games need a red cert label that is big and clear enough for all to see. DVDs and videos have them more noticeable, and though it might not stop nutter doing stupid stuff, it's a good step in doing something to put others at ease. The signing of a clause when you buy a violent game would definitely help softcos and stores more. I'm sure that part makes sense, and should be enforced.

If a clause is made and it's a legally binding document things might not be so bad, and shops would have to enforce checking the customers purchase age with more scrutiny.

>Thing is, games are no
>more realistic than films, and are rated by the
>same board. If they're rated by the same board,
>the same criteria should apply

not necessarily, games are much more immersive than movies could ever be, particularly the 1st person variety.
having said that, the bbfc should not be putting certificates on games, a different group of people should, one that understands games better.

no rating system could stop all kids from getting their hands on 'adult' matierial, I remember sneaking into 18 films many a time when i was 14, but they need to penalise shops who sell inapropriate games to underage kids.
They really ought to penalise the parants too, but theres no way to do that.

This is a bussines, Rockstar is going to justify this game to keep the earnings. But people dont take in acount childs who dont have parents for any or other reason, its easy to blame the parents, but HEEEY, THESE KIDS DONT HAVE THE BLAMNE OF NOT HAVING PARENTS, they are not as lucky as us, who have good parents, not every body in the world has good consultants, thats why it is a big responsability for the media to check every content they send, Look for example Maddona, she didnt understand this until she had a child,
I hope people read this and think, Hey i like violent games but first think in these abandoned people, cause in the future they coul be your neighbor, or the killer of one of your sons,
DONT BE SELFISH, THINK OF THE OTHER ONES, in the end it will help to have a better future

Joji wrote:

>Fair enough about the certification, but the
>games need a red cert label that is big and clear
>enough for all to see. DVDs and videos have them
>more noticeable, and though it might not stop
>nutter doing stupid stuff, it's a good step in
>doing something to put others at ease.

Thing is, the games and DVDs use the same system, and when checking my BBFC-rated games against the DVDs, it would appear that they're equally as noticeable. What I think we need is perhaps something to make parents more aware, to make them sit up and take notice.

Imagine this: An awareness advert to be shown after the watershed on TV. A joint effort by the BBFC and ELSPA that shows 15-rated films, the sort of content they contain, and comparable scenes from 15-rated games. This achieves two purposes. Firstly, it shows parents that games are no less "mature" in their content than films. Consequently, it should drive hom the message that games and films share BBFC ratings for a reason. Secondly, it might encourage parents to check out what their kids are already playing and watching, which can only help in the long run.

Edit: So to sum it all up - I believe that there is every reason to have adult-orientated games just as much as we have adult-orientated films. However, if we don't educate people to the fact that gaming can contain this content and that it's not always for kids now, we'll never get to a comfortable situation like the film industry has reached.

The fact is that Rockstar directly market their games to under 18s. Their games are seen as cool by under 18s.

I was slightly concerned when GTA was named as Gamestar's Game of the Year. All the "master gamers" in the studio were under 18 and so were most of the audience.

Game retailers do not enforce gaming regulations enough, and Rockster will not do anything to damage their revenue - I expect most comes from under 18s buying GTA/Manhunt, and I think it's stick their marketing it as such. Parents don't think to check the videogames their children are buying and don't care anyway.

I'm beginning to see what Mr Gosen was talking about...

Manhunt is possibly the single most tedious, repetative and meaningless title I've had the dipleasure of playing.

After the free roaming, mega interactive jape of GTA, Manhunt was just me, in an alley, versus the random route march and "line of sight" of the antagonists. I gave the game a second chance, but still, after another couple of "levels", found myself left utterly underwhelmed. I even found the slow-mo murderous attacks to be distasteful - yes, me, a absolute GTA devotee.

I reckon the developers were begging for this kind of attention. Instead they'll bring the wrath of tabloid braindead upon our industry.

I'd love to go off into a 10 paragraph arguement about how absurb this latest case is, but I've debated it a thousand times and it's beginning to become a tired issue. So I'll just say this; when are we going to draw the line at loose conections? Ok, so he played the game and used a weapon in the game. So what? If someone gets shot, are you going to say it was because of their obsession with 007 games? And what kind of movies was she watching? What kind of people did she associate with? All questions that seemed to be conveniently overlooked because they had already found a scapegoat and didn't want to make it more complicated than it had to be. And wouldn't her parents have NOTICED SOMEthing about her behaviour? Not to put the blame on the parents either, but surely if they had a good releationship with their son, they would have picked up some kind of indication. And it makes me SICK that retailers are pulling it from the shelves because that tells me that they believe Manhunt ot be the cause. I have no respect for stores like these and will make it a habit to avoid shopping there...