Censors ban 'brutal' video game

NymVette · Movie Producer

Censors ban 'brutal' video game

Darth Mattitude · The Dark Admin

As usual with things like this, it's down to the parents not checking what their little ones are watching/playing. Ratings are applied for a reason and I'm not one to agree with censorship of this kind as it just sends the game underground and people will get hold of it one way or another.

Although in this case, is a game about stalking and killing in cold blood like this really needed. I don't think it inspires people but it does give the Daily Mail and thier readers a reason for a witch hunt.

NymVette · Movie Producer

I agree with what you said, Banning is not always the answer as people will get hold of it no matter that it's banned. Parents should take more responsibility for what their children are playing or watching.

Man In Black · Anime Mod

If I may play Devil's Advocate, the film vs game issue as a matter of perspective. When watching a film you know that you are watching a character performing these violent acts that are staged and clearly faked. In PC games it puts the game player in the first person role so in essence the player that is commiting these acts. And, in films the perpetrator is the "bad guy" and thus gets his comeuppance in the end; in PC games if you are in the role of the perpetrator then your own survival is your paramount concern and the object of the game.

Obviously the chances of people taking this seriously enough to be influenced to assume this role in real life, one would hope are excessively slim to none, but that isn't always the case as we have seen. Yet, the fundamental connection between those who are easily influenced by violent games or films is a history of mental instability which is not something that can be foreseen by film and game makers.

Therefore, blaming the material as the cause of these real life criminal acts is simply shifting the blame and refusing to take responsibility for one's on failing as a parental watchdog. Assuming these games have an 18 rating to them, parents of anyone under that age should be more concerned that their children are in possession of these games or videos in the first place.

The media are quick to champion such a cause for the sake of glorifying a tragedy for its own benefits, yet a counter point in the interest of balance if often absent. Proof of the potential influence on the game players on film viewers to commit crimes being a widespread concern is non-existent. Isolated cases cannot be used as pecedent as by their very nature they are too exclusive to be make snap judgements on their sutability for public consumption.

I don't believe in censorship for the sake of it nor do I believe in the glorifying of violence and abuse but real or not, fiction or fantasy, do films and computer games need to be so violent and portray it in such a graphic and "glorified" manner? Or should the ratings of games and films be changed to ensure that these titles are placed under stricter prohibiton from youngsters?

-- Edited by Man In Black at 12:00, 2007-06-21

Totoro101 · Movie Executive Producer

Nice Post Mib.In my opinion,as a keen gamer,i was a fan of the original Manhunt title, it was brutal,it was violent,but it was fun and it was never intended for young children as the 18 certificate on the front clearly stated.Iv played it and a host of violent video games and i havent turned into a psycho, just as 99% of others who played it, or watch violent horror movies do.Only a small few will try to copy whats in these games or movies,and those kinds of people are not sane in mind.

I remember the James Bulger case,so sad and childs play 3 was banned because of it so called infulencing the 2 boys,i watched this movie myself only a couple of years back and it wasent as bad as anyone would think,i certainly dont remember a child being killed in the film,but because it did involve kids,it was picked out as the reason those sick morons murdered the small boy and banned it.Manhunt was also not as bad as people thought.Its amazing how young kids can get their hands on these things,surely parents would be sensible enough to not buy them the game,and they certainly shouldnt be sold them in the store.However i guess the difference between movies and video games is that parents know about movies much more then the content of video games,they would know not to show them a horror flick but they might be more passive of a game so they probably dont even bother to check what they buy them.But you really have to be quite warped in the mind to copy anything from a game or movie and kill or hurt someone just because of what you have seen in a movie or game.

Darth Mattitude · The Dark Admin

It's not being released stateside now either... Nintendo (Unsurprisingly) have said there is no way they are having it on the Wii platform.

Man In Black · Anime Mod

It's difficult because it really is a very small number of people who are negatively influenced by violent games and films, and of course it is statiscally proven that there were already sufferes of some form of mental illness be it depression, schizophrenia or some other corruption to their pychosis. Yet that small number of people have taken away a loved one from their families and no matter how small the statistics are, it is of little comfort to the bereaved parties.

This is why a general ban on things like these will always polarise opinion as for some it will bring a small amount of compensation for their loss in the hope it isn't repeated; but for the masses it deprives them of their freedom to choose their own entertainment and to have that snatched away arbitrarily is not conducive to this "democratic" society we (allegedly) live in.

NymVette · Movie Producer

I think you put the point across very well there MiB. It was the point I was trying to make. There is a small number who would be influenced by it but is it right to ban it for everyone and take away that choice we are all supposed to have by living in a free and democratic society?

Wouldn't it be better to put more effort at treating, helping and preventing the small number of people who would be influenced rather than just banning it for everyone?

Glad I managed to start a interesting topic that seems to have a few people commenting.

Handsome Dead · A List Star

Thing is MIB, you say that when you are playing it then you are in control etc etc, but is there really that much of a difference between say watching someone get strangled and pressing X to strangle someone?

Also, surely the fact that a film uses real people then it is going to be far more visceral than a game, particularly in this situation with the game being on the PS2 and Wii, neither of which can support even vaguely realistic graphics in this context. Particularly with films such as Saw, Hostel and Captivity out there which are basically just tortureporn, the banning of this is just ridiculous.

Man In Black · Anime Mod

Handsome Dead wrote:

Thing is MIB, you say that when you are playing it then you are in control etc etc, but is there really that much of a difference between say watching someone get strangled and pressing X to strangle someone?

Absolutely because in the game YOU are one doing the strangling whereas in the film you are watching this act. One is through the first person perspective where the actions are controlled entirely by you and the other is from the observer's perspective and you have no control over what is occuring.

Both are obviously as bad as each other but as we have alluded to, there are people who take these games seriously enough to want to emulate them for real. Yes, that goes for films too, but the difference is that playing that role in the game puts you in the position where you are the "virtual reality" strangler; in the film the viewer lives vicariously through the character on screen.

When the character dies in the film you know it is fiction and that the actor lives to see another day but in the game - for that moment - the character you have strangled, for all intents and purproses is actually dead. For the duration of a game played in the first person that IS your world and it is your reality. And as you are the main charater it is up to you to stay alive throughout the game so essentially, you commit these murders without recourse or repercussion. In films the message is that the murderer never gets away with it so his/her comeuppance is vital to the outcome of the story.

Again, the number of people who become influenced by these is minimal opposed to the millions who can play these games without any change in thier behaviour and can still quite easily distinguished virtual reality from true reality. The issue is more to do with who plays these games not the games themselves. If you know your teenage son has a history or mental illness and other psychotic problems then the last thing you should let him play with is a violent computer game.

Like I say I'm playing Devil's Advocate. I think blaming the media for everything is a cop out and an easy one at that, although I do think it is fair to question the need and vailidity of such a game in the first place.

Handsome Dead · A List Star

Man In Black wrote:

Handsome Dead wrote:

Thing is MIB, you say that when you are playing it then you are in control etc etc, but is there really that much of a difference between say watching someone get strangled and pressing X to strangle someone?

Absolutely because in the game YOU are one doing the strangling whereas in the film you are watching this act. One is through the first person perspective where the actions are controlled entirely by you and the other is from the observer's perspective and you have no control over what is occuring.
Both are obviously as bad as each other but as we have alluded to, there are people who take these games seriously enough to want to emulate them for real. Yes, that goes for films too, but the difference is that playing that role in the game puts you in the position where you are the "virtual reality" strangler; in the film the viewer lives vicariously through the character on screen.
When the character dies in the film you know it is fiction and that the actor lives to see another day but in the game - for that moment - the character you have strangled, for all intents and purproses is actually dead. For the duration of a game played in the first person that IS your world and it is your reality. And as you are the main charater it is up to you to stay alive throughout the game so essentially, you commit these murders without recourse or repercussion. In films the message is that the murderer never gets away with it so his/her comeuppance is vital to the outcome of the story.

Again, the number of people who become influenced by these is minimal opposed to the millions who can play these games without any change in thier behaviour and can still quite easily distinguished virtual reality from true reality. The issue is more to do with who plays these games not the games themselves. If you know your teenage son has a history or mental illness and other psychotic problems then the last thing you should let him play with is a violent computer game.

Like I say I'm playing Devil's Advocate. I think blaming the media for everything is a cop out and an easy one at that, although I do think it is fair to question the need and vailidity of such a game in the first place.

I could understand if you physically had to strangle some kind of controller to do it, but you're merely pressing a button. By that logic, I know how to drive because i've played DiRT and I know how to shoot because i've played Max Payne. It's such a cop out excuse.

I know it sounds like i'm having a go at you, when i'm the same as you in blaming the media.

Man In Black · Anime Mod

Handsome Dead wrote:
I could understand if you physically had to strangle some kind of controller to do it, but you're merely pressing a button. By that logic, I know how to drive because i've played DiRT and I know how to shoot because i've played Max Payne. It's such a cop out excuse.

Yes, but it is still you pressing the button isn't it? For all intents and purposes you are the strangler in the game.

To borrow you driving analagy, if the car crashes during the game who is at fault? You are because you are the driver - i.e the one pressing the buttons to control the car's actions - correct? So by that token it is the same if you are playing a game where you are in control of the murderer. Nobody else is making the guy strangle anyone except the person pressing the buttons.

I know you're not having a go but may I remind you I am merely proffering objective suggestions as to what arguments one would face when trying to defend these games in the eyes of the media.

You know, this is the second discussion I am having where the concept of "perception" is the issue and the second time no-one gets it. I think I'll just shut up instead. cry

BTW - HD, it's your turn to set the next Strip Tease question!