If I was a kid and I wanted to murder someone, I'd say the same thing - the video game made me do it! Apparently there are enough grown adults willing to swallow that line that you just might pull it off. Hasn't RockStar been sued before in a case like this and won, though?
I see no mention of Jack Thompson in the article, but I'll bet a jelly donut that he's involved. Mmmm, donut...
thats funny , its like trying to take a film studio , and production company to court for making a violent movie. yes , sue the crap out of wallmart if you like for selling the game to a minor.
Not that its really there fault probly ... lets face it , if you are 16 and you want to get a 18 game , you just ask you buddy to get it for you , or somone that is 18 ....
[ QUOTE ]
Thompson is now 18 years old, but at the time of the shootings he was 16. As such, the lawsuit claims, he should not have been sold GTA III and GTA: Vice City, which carry an M rating - for 'mature audience only', ie. anyone 17 years old or more. On that basis, the plaintiffs requested that the book also be thrown at retailers Wal-Mart and Gamestop for allegedly allowing Thompson to buy the games.
It also names Sony, as manufacturer of the PlayStation 2 console on which Thompson is said to have played the games.
[/ QUOTE ]
The lawsuit also named the Graphics Company, Alias, for supplying software to the artists who made the game. Zenith television corp is also being named, due to them supplying the television that the game was seen on. And last of all, the plainiff is suing God, due to the fact that he gave mankind opposable thumbs, which are necessary to play the game.
Hm. I dare say its time for as combined counter suing from all of the mentioned parties. That'd put a stop to this stupidity once and for all. I'm sure theres grounds for defamation at the very least.
the devil! (i can't believe after years and years of Sh*t like this that people refuse to take responsibilty for their actions, doesnt anyone stop to think that if these games were really that influential, that there would be mass murder in the streets? i mean all of us here at polycount would be killing people if that were the case, ugh, LAME....)
Oh Of all the game previews I ever seen, the one for GTA did disturb me, but then again I have an oversized guilt gland. I usually post this: I think I heard that most young boys witness 100 k murders off tv by the age of 10!
well GTA San Andreas DOES glorify the gangsta lifestyle, but it's no different than any movie made in the 90's about the same subject matter or ANY rap music you hear today. i'm sure the kid realized what he did was jacked up and so he thought he'd get an out by mentioning a game when they finally got him
Watching violence on tv or on film, be it a sports game or an action flick is truly a different experience then partaking in the violence through interactive media. I love games to death...but even I recognize the effect counterstrike has on me when some guy gets 5 headshots in a row from across the map with the desert eagle. I want to reach through the screen and stab him in the forehead with a bic pen. Surely if I had never had the opportunity to act out this fantasy in a mod for doom2, quake 2, quake 3, or whatever other games you want to use for your defense...I would never have felt these urges.
I'm preemptive suing those companies for any future breakdown I may have. Case closed.
I think that there needs to be an overhaul of our civil litigation system. Instead of there just being two possible verdict, there would be three, and here they are:
1. Find in favor of plaintiff (Sue-er), award damages.
2. Find in favor of defendent, insufficient evidence to warrant damages being paid.
3. Find in favor of the defendent with overwhelming support. In other words, the case was totally frivolous, and with no merit.
In this third finding, the plaintiff would then need to pay the court costs for the defendent, and also pay them for the time they spent in court at tripple their normal wage, plus harassment damages. These latter damages would be quite hefty. The maximum damages could be 30% of the ammount that they were attempting to sue for, and this would generally be aimed at corporations who were doing BS lawsuits. If it was an individual, covering this dollar amount if it were in the millions would not be possible to pay, therefore they should have to pay for damages at 30% of their annual salary.
Suddenly defendents wouldn't be so terrified to go to court if they knew that the lawsuit was total BS. They could be looking to get some serious payback, quite literally.
Yours is probably the most compelling argument. I usually cite GTA as an example in this case. After playing GTA for 3+ hours, I occasionally have strange urges to start driving on the sidewalk, gleefully mowing down pedestrians. Before I played GTA, I never, ever felt any desire to slaughter pedestrians with a motor vehicle. Thankfully, my grasp on reality is firm enough to prevent me from ever acting on such disturbing desires. And after an hour or two, those urges go away entirely.
But aside from that, playing a video game has never made me feel homicidal. Frustrated, but never kill-frenzy frustrated. I used to love our Quake I, II fragfests even though I constantly lost.
One problem is, GTA lets you run down pedestrians for no reason at all, and provides death sounds and animations. With Microsoft games, the pedestrians would always jump out of the way. I don't believe video games cause you do act violently...but I do wonder the reasons why developers include these types of choices. I've seen few people play through the GTA missions, so the game could more easily be called "GTA: The pedestrian and police killing simulator". That's bound to cause a problem, as it has.
Just weeks ago, a policemen was shot dead near my home. The killer was being arrested for parole violation, when he took the cop's gun and shot him between the eyes. The next cop to respond to the scene was my friend's fiance. When he arrived, the hole in the cop's head was still smoking. He's now seeking therapy, and was so traumatized by the event, the wedding was called off, and they have since split. They found the boy who shot him hiding under a trailer just a block from my home. It was a tragedy that shocked the community. The boy is now in prison along with his father, who also killed a policemen years ago.
These people are the scum of the earth, and these events are too tragic to be played out in the form of a game for children to play for entertainment.
As I said, I don't believe games force anyone to kill. But, consider what I've just explained. What part of killing simulated civilians and policemen then stealing their cars is a game? Just because you CAN do it, doesn't mean you should. That the line this form of entertainment blurs. And children will have a difficult time understanding that. They're young and CAN be easily influenced to do wrong. Maybe not you, or anyone you know, but some. The environment provides them with a choice to do wrong.
To attempt to sue so many companies involved I think is rediculous. Find the person in charge of designing the game, and ask him his purpose for doing so. If he can't provide one, run him down with a car. Interesting stance to take isn't it?
Killing invading aliens, and murders, and terrorists...may be one thing. But the random killing of innocent victims is nothing to toy with.
The newer GTA games no longer reward you for killing innocents (in GTA 1 you got points depending on how brutal the kill was, flamethrower gave 10x) so running them over or killing them in any other way is purely your choice. Of course, since there's not much you can do legally in the game you're pretty much forced to go the illegal route but still, nobody says "go out and kill as many innocent people as possible". Though GTA's lack of consequences makes illegal activity MUCH easier. What happened in all of those free space sims (Elite, Privateer, X, etc.) when you attacked civilian vessels or stations? You're flagged as a pirate for the rest of the game! You don't respawn when you die, you stay dead. Of course, that would ruin the fun in GTA because the point of that game is to let you do things you'd never do in real life (not just killing, would you drive up an improvised ramp and attempt to make a 360° with your car?).
What if a game just put you into a fully simulated city, with just as much focus put on the legal side as on the illegal one and real consequences and everything, don't you think people would still run around killing innocents just because they can? Should the designers introduce an exception "The player can do absolutely verything EXCEPT harm people flagged as innocent"?
Besides, GTA is rated M, if a young and impressionable child plays it you should have a serious talk with the parents about suitable games for children.
right, no reward, and no consquences. so how does that influence gameplay? What if there was a real consequence? Let's say you were playing through a system like Steam. Once you kill so many innocent people, you are then banned from playing the game.
Or for GTA, run over so many innocent people, and you are prevented from saving the game, and all your progress up to that point gets erased. With games moving closer to realism, and children getting their hands on games they shouldn't...some social responsibility should be placed on the developers. It's this lack of responsibility that will eventually lead us to a society where strict laws are put in place within the world of digital interactive entertainment. Parents don't give a shit, and they won't unless they also have something to lose.
I don't think that's something you should do. Who defines what is good and evil? Some would like the player to lose the game when he gets serviced by a prostitute, would you punish that as well? What if the game designer is some religious nutcase who thinks those "innocents" are a bunch of sinners and deserve to die, how would you explain to him that it's not a good thing to kill them? Or what if somebody thinks we shouldn't shoot at any humans in games at all because those poor terrorists/soldiers/aliens have lives and family as well?
Honestly, I don't think movie directors have to care about audiences that aren't supposed to watch the movie in first place (child-safe porn???). Why can't a dev make a game children shouldn't play? There's a big rating on the box and it's reasonable to assume that it's not the dev's fault if the game gets into the hands of minors. Would you like your porn censored because someone thinks it MIGHT get into the hands of children? Seriously, I'd go the more reasonable way first and outlaw selling these games to minors, that way adults still get their games and minors can't buy them (and you can more easily trace where your child got that game from). Though I'd also suggest to give parents some basic education, e.g. how to spot the savegames of unsuitable games on their consoles (or how to engage the parental lock if available).
Yes, yes, we knew that all along. Now make a game about dissecting young girls... Oh wait, there already is one, it's called Tsuki Hime and comes from... guess where? Exactly, Japan!
[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, I'd go the more reasonable way first and outlaw selling these games to minors.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's the path were heading towards. And the companies that violate this get sued, like above.
I guess this discussion has lost its focus. Who defines good and evil? Who knows. So I can assume chopping up babies into small peices is debatable, whether real or depicted digitally. I come from a world where choices are reasonable, and actions are justified. I see there is no purpose in discussing the moral responsibility of interactive content developers to those who recieve their paychecks from them.
Well, then how about more ambiguous content like porn? People see you're punishing killing innocents (with measures more draconic than anything really used, usually killing civilians at worst nets you a quick game over, e.g. Tron 2.0, Outcast), they'll demand other bits of morals enforced as well. Of course you might brush it off saying "we made an exception" but it'll give them ideas nonetheless.
Either way, the problem here is not that the game got into the hands of minors but that someone made it at all. Preventing sales to minors wouldn't stop this lawsuit. That's like saying "Timmy raped Jane after watching Gangbang 3, we demand that producing porn is outlawed!".
I see there is no purpose in discussing the moral responsibility of interactive content developers to those who recieve their paychecks from them.
I suppose that's aimed at someone else since I'm a construction worker?
It is. I know you're not in the industry, and you're the only one discussing the issue 'in' this thread. I'm actually unsure whether you agree or disagree with me anymore. What I'm saying is "companies should be more careful about what they send to their target audiences, or the audience most likely to take interest". I think you're saying "brush it off, don't worry about it".
[ QUOTE ]
the problem here is not that the game got into the hands of minors but that someone made it at all
[ QUOTE ]
Find the person in charge of designing the game, and ask him his purpose for doing so. If he can't provide one, run him down with a car. Interesting stance to take isn't it?
[/ QUOTE ]
Hypocrite much?
How about instead of shifting the blame you ask parents why they aren't paying attention to what their kids are doing, or making a clear distinction between real life and a game? Or right and wrong for that matter?
So are you going to initiate a task force that will go to every single parent's door and ask them those questions, and then follow up later and see their progress? That's not much of a real world solution, although I agree that many parents should take a lot more responsibility than they do.
Also, children can't distinguish as well between fantasy and reality, and their impulse control is not fully developed. That part of the equation isn't the fault of the parents, it's how kids develop.
[ QUOTE ]
So are you going to initiate a task force that will go to every single parent's door and ask them those questions, and then follow up later and see their progress? That's not much of a real world solution, although I agree that many parents should take a lot more responsibility than they do.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hm. How about putting the adults on trial along with the children for negligent parenting? If a minor wants to claim GTA made him do it as his court defense, then he should have to do so with the knowledge that he is, to some degree, taking his parents down with him. If a parent leaves loaded guns lying around the house and his kid kills someone with them, the parent is partly to fully liable in that scenario...
[ QUOTE ]
Also, children can't distinguish as well between fantasy and reality, and their impulse control is not fully developed. That part of the equation isn't the fault of the parents, it's how kids develop.
[/ QUOTE ]
At the time of the killings, the kid was 16 years old. Would you argue that a 16 year old is unable to distinguish fantasy from reality? That their impulses are uncontrollable? Since the vast, vast majority of males who earn their drivers' licenses at age 16 don't start running down pedestrians because they think life is a game, why should this kid be held to a different standard?
Eduction is an important first step. Parents realize what movie ratings mean but they don't know the ESRB ratings. Personally I'd recommend the ESRB to kill their current ratings system (not only is it unnecessarily confusing, the term "mature" is too positive and makes children think they're mature when they play the game) and adopt a number system like the USK here is using. An M might be misunderstood and the current black&white design blends in too well with the cover art. The USK uses a square label in bright color (depending on the rating) that's impossible to overlook and has the age in big letters. A parent who sees the T or M on a game might not know what to make of it, a 16+ is unmistakeable.
Doesn't Germany already have a pretty strict set of restrictions on games and the like, KDR? I seem to (vaguely) recall news about various games being banned there. To my knowledge, no game has ever been banned in the US. I know a few that have gone unreleased because of their content (I played Thrill Kill on a modded PS back in the day, after EA cancelled it), but the government itself has never stepped in as far as I know. Personally, I think a federally mandated rating system might be more effective than the current self-imposed system; not because it would be more stringent, but because it's apt to be more widely enforced at point of sale.
Verm: The US constitution prevents any form of government interjection, games are considered free speech and just as you can't get someone for spreading neonazi propaganda (in the US, they'd immediately lose any rights to free expression in Germany for that) you can't get them for making or selling games to anyone. Though I believe that for some inane reason selling pornography to minors isn't legal...
That's not entirely the case. There is occasionally some legal debate about whether or not games constitute art and are subject to First Amendment protection. Usually, the answer is yes in those cases, but it sometimes still goes to a judge to settle it. But, like the porn issue you just mentioned, that isn't a guarantee of freedom to publish anything. You can't sell child porn for instance, and I'm sure that a game which included practical information in, say, how to build a functional pipe bomb, could also be legislated against. In the case of GTA, it's not breaking any laws with its content, which is why this case (as with all of the other cases) won't stick.
Ah, yeah, you're right, it wasn't the Supreme Court. Probably mixed that up because in Germany only the equivalent of the Supreme Court rules things unconstitutional.
Hey verm I like your idea of putting the parents on trial along with the kid for negligence. But I think if a kid was willing to kill a police officer, knowing that doing so would get his parents in trouble wouldn't be a serious deterrent.
All this "negligent parenting" stuff reminds me of the Sopranos for some reason
It's a way of telling the parents "better make fucking sure your kid doesn't do crap". Other parents manage to bring up well-adjusted children that don't commit crimes, if you can't maybe you need to review your methods.
Replies
I see no mention of Jack Thompson in the article, but I'll bet a jelly donut that he's involved. Mmmm, donut...
That wasn't serious, btw.
In this one he's mentioned , Verm.
Not that its really there fault probly ... lets face it , if you are 16 and you want to get a 18 game , you just ask you buddy to get it for you , or somone that is 18 ....
In this one he's mentioned , Verm.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ah hah! Jelly donut is mine! Man, are there any video game lawsutis that happen *without* this guy?
Thompson is now 18 years old, but at the time of the shootings he was 16. As such, the lawsuit claims, he should not have been sold GTA III and GTA: Vice City, which carry an M rating - for 'mature audience only', ie. anyone 17 years old or more. On that basis, the plaintiffs requested that the book also be thrown at retailers Wal-Mart and Gamestop for allegedly allowing Thompson to buy the games.
It also names Sony, as manufacturer of the PlayStation 2 console on which Thompson is said to have played the games.
[/ QUOTE ]
The lawsuit also named the Graphics Company, Alias, for supplying software to the artists who made the game. Zenith television corp is also being named, due to them supplying the television that the game was seen on. And last of all, the plainiff is suing God, due to the fact that he gave mankind opposable thumbs, which are necessary to play the game.
Friggin dumbazzes if you ask me.
It's the parents fault. Why can't people go home and watch their children learn.
/jzero
I'm preemptive suing those companies for any future breakdown I may have. Case closed.
1. Find in favor of plaintiff (Sue-er), award damages.
2. Find in favor of defendent, insufficient evidence to warrant damages being paid.
3. Find in favor of the defendent with overwhelming support. In other words, the case was totally frivolous, and with no merit.
In this third finding, the plaintiff would then need to pay the court costs for the defendent, and also pay them for the time they spent in court at tripple their normal wage, plus harassment damages. These latter damages would be quite hefty. The maximum damages could be 30% of the ammount that they were attempting to sue for, and this would generally be aimed at corporations who were doing BS lawsuits. If it was an individual, covering this dollar amount if it were in the millions would not be possible to pay, therefore they should have to pay for damages at 30% of their annual salary.
Suddenly defendents wouldn't be so terrified to go to court if they knew that the lawsuit was total BS. They could be looking to get some serious payback, quite literally.
But aside from that, playing a video game has never made me feel homicidal. Frustrated, but never kill-frenzy frustrated. I used to love our Quake I, II fragfests even though I constantly lost.
Just weeks ago, a policemen was shot dead near my home. The killer was being arrested for parole violation, when he took the cop's gun and shot him between the eyes. The next cop to respond to the scene was my friend's fiance. When he arrived, the hole in the cop's head was still smoking. He's now seeking therapy, and was so traumatized by the event, the wedding was called off, and they have since split. They found the boy who shot him hiding under a trailer just a block from my home. It was a tragedy that shocked the community. The boy is now in prison along with his father, who also killed a policemen years ago.
These people are the scum of the earth, and these events are too tragic to be played out in the form of a game for children to play for entertainment.
As I said, I don't believe games force anyone to kill. But, consider what I've just explained. What part of killing simulated civilians and policemen then stealing their cars is a game? Just because you CAN do it, doesn't mean you should. That the line this form of entertainment blurs. And children will have a difficult time understanding that. They're young and CAN be easily influenced to do wrong. Maybe not you, or anyone you know, but some. The environment provides them with a choice to do wrong.
To attempt to sue so many companies involved I think is rediculous. Find the person in charge of designing the game, and ask him his purpose for doing so. If he can't provide one, run him down with a car. Interesting stance to take isn't it?
Killing invading aliens, and murders, and terrorists...may be one thing. But the random killing of innocent victims is nothing to toy with.
What if a game just put you into a fully simulated city, with just as much focus put on the legal side as on the illegal one and real consequences and everything, don't you think people would still run around killing innocents just because they can? Should the designers introduce an exception "The player can do absolutely verything EXCEPT harm people flagged as innocent"?
Besides, GTA is rated M, if a young and impressionable child plays it you should have a serious talk with the parents about suitable games for children.
Or for GTA, run over so many innocent people, and you are prevented from saving the game, and all your progress up to that point gets erased. With games moving closer to realism, and children getting their hands on games they shouldn't...some social responsibility should be placed on the developers. It's this lack of responsibility that will eventually lead us to a society where strict laws are put in place within the world of digital interactive entertainment. Parents don't give a shit, and they won't unless they also have something to lose.
Honestly, I don't think movie directors have to care about audiences that aren't supposed to watch the movie in first place (child-safe porn???). Why can't a dev make a game children shouldn't play? There's a big rating on the box and it's reasonable to assume that it's not the dev's fault if the game gets into the hands of minors. Would you like your porn censored because someone thinks it MIGHT get into the hands of children? Seriously, I'd go the more reasonable way first and outlaw selling these games to minors, that way adults still get their games and minors can't buy them (and you can more easily trace where your child got that game from). Though I'd also suggest to give parents some basic education, e.g. how to spot the savegames of unsuitable games on their consoles (or how to engage the parental lock if available).
Seriously, I'd go the more reasonable way first and outlaw selling these games to minors.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's the path were heading towards. And the companies that violate this get sued, like above.
I guess this discussion has lost its focus. Who defines good and evil? Who knows. So I can assume chopping up babies into small peices is debatable, whether real or depicted digitally. I come from a world where choices are reasonable, and actions are justified. I see there is no purpose in discussing the moral responsibility of interactive content developers to those who recieve their paychecks from them.
Either way, the problem here is not that the game got into the hands of minors but that someone made it at all. Preventing sales to minors wouldn't stop this lawsuit. That's like saying "Timmy raped Jane after watching Gangbang 3, we demand that producing porn is outlawed!".
I see there is no purpose in discussing the moral responsibility of interactive content developers to those who recieve their paychecks from them.
I suppose that's aimed at someone else since I'm a construction worker?
[ QUOTE ]
the problem here is not that the game got into the hands of minors but that someone made it at all
[/ QUOTE ]
i agree.
Find the person in charge of designing the game, and ask him his purpose for doing so. If he can't provide one, run him down with a car. Interesting stance to take isn't it?
[/ QUOTE ]
Hypocrite much?
How about instead of shifting the blame you ask parents why they aren't paying attention to what their kids are doing, or making a clear distinction between real life and a game? Or right and wrong for that matter?
Frank the Avenger
Also, children can't distinguish as well between fantasy and reality, and their impulse control is not fully developed. That part of the equation isn't the fault of the parents, it's how kids develop.
So are you going to initiate a task force that will go to every single parent's door and ask them those questions, and then follow up later and see their progress? That's not much of a real world solution, although I agree that many parents should take a lot more responsibility than they do.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hm. How about putting the adults on trial along with the children for negligent parenting? If a minor wants to claim GTA made him do it as his court defense, then he should have to do so with the knowledge that he is, to some degree, taking his parents down with him. If a parent leaves loaded guns lying around the house and his kid kills someone with them, the parent is partly to fully liable in that scenario...
[ QUOTE ]
Also, children can't distinguish as well between fantasy and reality, and their impulse control is not fully developed. That part of the equation isn't the fault of the parents, it's how kids develop.
[/ QUOTE ]
At the time of the killings, the kid was 16 years old. Would you argue that a 16 year old is unable to distinguish fantasy from reality? That their impulses are uncontrollable? Since the vast, vast majority of males who earn their drivers' licenses at age 16 don't start running down pedestrians because they think life is a game, why should this kid be held to a different standard?
All this "negligent parenting" stuff reminds me of the Sopranos for some reason