Past EED rants

Labels

Live leaderboard

Poker leaderboard

Voice of EED

Saturday 31 July 2004

Ban this sick filth!!!!! [spiny]

Fictitious Scenario:
A juvenile, called Cletus buys a bottle of whisky. He takes it some, hooks up with one of his mates, Eddie. They both drink half a bottle each. The next day, Eddie is found dead after passing out & choking on his own vomit. Enraged, Eddies parents call for the banning of All whisky sales immediately and sue the distillery involved.
The parents' reaction sounds ridiculous doesn't it. Clearly the people responsible are the retailer for selling the alcohol to a juvenile and the Cletus's parents for failing to communicate the dangers of alcohol to their sun. The distillery? Give me a break.
Well, this isn't a million miles from this sad story.
This is an undoubtedly a tragic event and have no doubt that my sympathies are with the poor victim's family. Dixons and other retailers are removing the game in question from shelves in a panicked response to the parents' call to ban the video game in question.
However the victim's parents call for a ban on violent games is deeply misguided. As in the alcohol case above, if any blame is to be apportioned, it must lie with the retailer and the parents of the boy responsible for this heinous act. This game was rated 18 and as such should not have been sold to anyone under that age. (If the pupretrator of this crime did indeed buy the game, was it his parents?). If any prosecutions are brought to bear it should be these parties that are in the dock.
I'm sure this line of reason hasn't escaped Dixons notice, hence their actions. Perhaps better control over who their staff sold software to would be more effective. But I guess that would be more expensive & not as high profile eh?
Once again, there is no proven link between acts of violence and the use of video games (or film for that matter). I see the headline of the trash press has 'BAN THESE EVIL GAMES' plastered over the front page. There IS a proven link between illness, addiction and violence with both alcohol and tobacco. (OK, maybe not tobacco & violence, I've yet to hear of fag-rage ;)). Maybe I should call the tabloids & tell them, we may see 'BAN THIS EVIL DRINK' and 'BAN THESE EVIL CIGS' tomorrow.
Still, we all know how that particular piece of moral high ground is built on sand.

14 comments:

  1. For all the controversy surrounding this game though. The sad thing is, it just looks like a poor game. Just has kids think swearing makes shocking & therefore somehow cool, Rockstar seem to have produced this game with similar intent. Violence for violence sake, with not much of a game underneath. I've seen video reviews of the game & been completely underwhelmed by the gameplay. By all means ban this game, but not because it's violent, but rather it's produced on a weak premise with little substance in the content.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Fact is, comparing video games with whiskey is just as sensationalist (and therefore rubbish) as the Daily Mail makes out in their own headlines.
    'Why not ban fags, whiskey and books?' is a lame response which simply goes to show that nobody recognises that there is a larger responsibility to make sure that the right people see the right things.
    Yes, there is no 'proven link between acts of violence and the use of video games' but then, there is no study done on a large enough scale to prove it one way or another.
    Rockstar released a game with a USP that seems to me to be 'you can kill people in a REALLY realistic way'. That's not fun is it? I thought games were supposed to be fun.
    Dixons et al are doing what they do best: protecting their collective corporate asses. I don't blame them.
    The game is shit apparantly, fair enough. Rockstar set out to make a title that would take realistic killing to a believable level, fair enough. The fact that an 18 cert game was being played by someone under the legal age to do so, is an issue (currently an unescapably impossible eventuality to fix of course, but there you go). The fact that the kid was a druggy, is an issue concerning society; not the game.
    The fact that the kid played the game, and killed another child in a manner identical to that which he killed characters in game, demonstrates a link between the two events.
    This has nothing to do with how many people have claw hammers in their houses, or how many people have spectacularly failed to re-enact an assassination attempt on the President after reading a Tom Clancy novel; that's all so much shit.
    This is about ensuring that content is provided to an appropriate audience. Film does it, TV does it, and given the very interactive and often 'real' nature of computer games, it's about time the computer game industry started doing it too.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And thats exactly what they do by adding the 18 BBFC rating to the game. The same as the film industry does. Its the shops that are the ones that don't do their part.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 'Why not ban fags, whiskey and books?' is a lame response which simply goes to show that nobody recognises that there is a larger responsibility to make sure that the right people see the right things. Exactly my point.Dixons et al are doing what they do best: protecting their collective corporate asses. I don't blame them.Yes, but by this action they're effectively admitting that they can't control their own sales channel.This is about ensuring that content is provided to an appropriate audience. Film does it, TV does it, and given the very interactive and often 'real' nature of computer games, it's about time the computer game industry started doing it too.Pod: And thats exactly what they do by adding the 18 BBFC rating to the game. The same as the film industry does. Its the shops that are the ones that don't do their part.Absolutely.

    ReplyDelete
  5. heh, well, so you actually think that games can brainwash kids? i think its something like this: he would have killed anyway. if he had seen his dad kill a snake with a shovel he would have used that. censorship is the start of very bad things, and shouldnt be an option in any free country.

    ReplyDelete
  6. No I don't & didn't say that. I'm with you, if you're a nutter then you're a nutter. There'll always be some catalyst that pushes you over the edge. There's a difference between blanket censorship & an appropriately enforced ratings system for a topic. Which was kind of the point of the blog.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Why don't they ban people? No one would get hurt then.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Spiny please don't use html mark up, you *always* fuck it up :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. grow up, have kids of your own, and start to learn what life is about. Its about responsibility, caring, educating your own kids, (especially that religion is ignorance), and learning to differentiate between truth (or learning) and ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ah, so you can only understand what life is about after having kids, and then educating them that religion is ignorance? Blimey.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Heh and that was a life propaganda announcement on behalf of the aethiest parents association. Just as well one gets to make up your own mind of what 'life is about' eh?

    ReplyDelete
  12. It's all bollocks anyway, since it was revealed that the game was owned by the victim not the murderer, and that the motive was cash/drugs related. Even the police say the game had fuck all to do with it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I just like the fact that sales of Manhunt went up after all the media

    ReplyDelete
  14. http://forums.adorablebunnies.com/index.phpCome and swap spit about postinf filth in adorablebunnies.com/UPLOAD/

    ReplyDelete