The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Police in Germany have pointed out that 19 year old gunman Robert Steinhaeuser was an avid player of violent videogames.
The teenage gunman responsible for the deaths of 16 people at his former school in Germany on Friday, reportedly played computer games with "intensive weapons usage" according to Erfurt police. Chief Rainer Grube said that Robert Steinhaesuer regularly enjoyed playing violent videogames, and specific titles like Counter-Strike were were mentioned. Counter-Strike, a game in which you play as an anti-terrorist organisation, is one of the most popular shooting games on the internet.
The 19 year old opened fire on his former classmates after he had been expelled from the school, and killed 13 teachers, 2 students and a police officer, before turning the gun on himself. The finger very quickly came round to violent videogames (as it often does in these situations), although the fact that he was a member of a gun club may have had slightly more to do with it. Bizarrely, a picture of Posh Spice on the killer's wall was also mentioned in The Sun's report, although what relevance this nobody knows.
This claim comes soon after a court ruled that violent games were not the cause of the Columbine shootings in 2000, after a lawsuit was brought against major corporations including Sony, Nintendo and Activision by the families of the victims. Similarly to that case, violent music has also been mentioned, and many newspapers have picked up on the fact that Steinhaeuser listened to rock band Slipknot. A lyric in one Slipknot song reads: "Shoot your naughty teachers with a pump gun." But can inciteful music or videogames really drive someone to acts of violence such as these?
As games get more realistic, the controversy factor gets higher, and while the Daily Mail etc. may rant about violent videogames, the violence content of games has definitely increased over the last few years. Games like Grand Theft Auto 3 and State of Emergency have caused concern among parents due to their violent content, and first-person shooters are now the most popular form of videogame. But haven't we been through all of this before? Doesn't this happen every time a tragic event occurs? If someone has the access to guns and ammo, and has the will to carry out acts like young Steinhaeuser did, surely a mere videogame isn't to blame? The picture of Posh Spice could have equally been the cause. It's blatant finger pointing, drawing away attention to the fact he had access to weapons and ammunition, and yet again, computer games are the first to blamed.
So, do you think violent videogames can really incite people to perform violent acts? Are games like Counter-Strike partly responsible for these tragedies?
The teenage gunman responsible for the deaths of 16 people at his former school in Germany on Friday, reportedly played computer games with "intensive weapons usage" according to Erfurt police. Chief Rainer Grube said that Robert Steinhaesuer regularly enjoyed playing violent videogames, and specific titles like Counter-Strike were were mentioned. Counter-Strike, a game in which you play as an anti-terrorist organisation, is one of the most popular shooting games on the internet.
The 19 year old opened fire on his former classmates after he had been expelled from the school, and killed 13 teachers, 2 students and a police officer, before turning the gun on himself. The finger very quickly came round to violent videogames (as it often does in these situations), although the fact that he was a member of a gun club may have had slightly more to do with it. Bizarrely, a picture of Posh Spice on the killer's wall was also mentioned in The Sun's report, although what relevance this nobody knows.
This claim comes soon after a court ruled that violent games were not the cause of the Columbine shootings in 2000, after a lawsuit was brought against major corporations including Sony, Nintendo and Activision by the families of the victims. Similarly to that case, violent music has also been mentioned, and many newspapers have picked up on the fact that Steinhaeuser listened to rock band Slipknot. A lyric in one Slipknot song reads: "Shoot your naughty teachers with a pump gun." But can inciteful music or videogames really drive someone to acts of violence such as these?
As games get more realistic, the controversy factor gets higher, and while the Daily Mail etc. may rant about violent videogames, the violence content of games has definitely increased over the last few years. Games like Grand Theft Auto 3 and State of Emergency have caused concern among parents due to their violent content, and first-person shooters are now the most popular form of videogame. But haven't we been through all of this before? Doesn't this happen every time a tragic event occurs? If someone has the access to guns and ammo, and has the will to carry out acts like young Steinhaeuser did, surely a mere videogame isn't to blame? The picture of Posh Spice could have equally been the cause. It's blatant finger pointing, drawing away attention to the fact he had access to weapons and ammunition, and yet again, computer games are the first to blamed.
So, do you think violent videogames can really incite people to perform violent acts? Are games like Counter-Strike partly responsible for these tragedies?
Page:
Give this man a GAD.......oh...ummm
Moof wrote:
> The people who commit these crimes are obviously unstable. Theres no
> doubt in anyones mind, as I see it, that this was not caused by the
> video games.
This depends a lot on whether the tabloid press constitue "anyone"...
> In a deranged mind songs/games are constantly
> placing these violent premises. Desensitization is already recognised
> as a side effect to prolonged exposure to certain medium. So I'm not
> saying that the game made him this way, but I am saying it had a part
> to play.
Possibly, although quite frankly, I think the good old "A-Team" is very dubious in this aspect. Lots of shooting, explosions and in one episode I've seen (no joke, I swear) a helicopter crashes, the people get out and cough a little - no one ever gets hurt. This with actual photorealistic graphics (i.e. not a clearly unreal cartoon) - so shooting is a laugh and no-oine gets hurt? So much for desensitisation by graphic violence.
But yes, I am sure the games played a part, although what is also confused a lot, I feel, is cause and effect. Someone who is fascinated by violence will be fascinated by violent games.
> Now another question I'd like to raise is why do so many people want
> violent games to be so realistic? Why so defensive? What 'need' is
> this game satisfying in normal minds?
Easy: we all have fantasies, and for me, I like to relieve stress and act
out safely such fantasies. As mentioned in my first post, such things probably have an inciting and a relieving effect. For the vast majority of people, I think that the relieving effect is the main point - as mentioned, many studies have shown this to be true for pornography. (And no, I am not saying that violence and pornography are the same, but the underlying principle of fantasy vs. reality is the same, I believe.)
> The people who commit these crimes are obviously unstable. Theres no
> doubt in anyones mind, as I see it, that this was not caused by the
> video games.
This depends a lot on whether the tabloid press constitue "anyone"...
> In a deranged mind songs/games are constantly
> placing these violent premises. Desensitization is already recognised
> as a side effect to prolonged exposure to certain medium. So I'm not
> saying that the game made him this way, but I am saying it had a part
> to play.
Possibly, although quite frankly, I think the good old "A-Team" is very dubious in this aspect. Lots of shooting, explosions and in one episode I've seen (no joke, I swear) a helicopter crashes, the people get out and cough a little - no one ever gets hurt. This with actual photorealistic graphics (i.e. not a clearly unreal cartoon) - so shooting is a laugh and no-oine gets hurt? So much for desensitisation by graphic violence.
But yes, I am sure the games played a part, although what is also confused a lot, I feel, is cause and effect. Someone who is fascinated by violence will be fascinated by violent games.
> Now another question I'd like to raise is why do so many people want
> violent games to be so realistic? Why so defensive? What 'need' is
> this game satisfying in normal minds?
Easy: we all have fantasies, and for me, I like to relieve stress and act
out safely such fantasies. As mentioned in my first post, such things probably have an inciting and a relieving effect. For the vast majority of people, I think that the relieving effect is the main point - as mentioned, many studies have shown this to be true for pornography. (And no, I am not saying that violence and pornography are the same, but the underlying principle of fantasy vs. reality is the same, I believe.)
Hi there,
I happen to hear a lot about the Erfurt tragedy, since I am in Germany. On a little technical note, among the date were 12 teachers and one secretary, not 13 teachers. A minor point though, of course, since the job of the victims should be absolutely secondary.
I think that in rare cases, people who already have (latent) psychological problems could be influenced by games, but on the other hand many other people may find it helpful in relieving stress. After the old "porn causes rape" has become stale (and most scientists whose studies are not ridden with methodological flaws are convinced that the outlet function is far higher than the incitement function), the media have found something new, although the arguments remain the same. There have also been killers inspired by Mozart or Beethoven, and you can still listen to their music.
Furthermore, I can't talk about The Sun on this occasion, but the German equivalent "Bild" has some of the most tasteless coverage of the tragedy possible. They are not interested in any reasoned debate, they're interested in selling more papers - behind their affected grief for the victims it is easy to see how grateful they are for the happenings, when day after day they have headlines like "How much 'amoc' is in my child?" "Is one born evil?" etc.
The problem in Germany is that we do not have a proper rating system. The so-called index is a pitifully out-dated means of censorship which just can't keep up with the realities of international markets. Of course, the killer also was 19, i.e. had reached legal adulthood (which has caused one of the more desperate politicians to suggest that the age should be changed back to 21), but the fact of the matter is that there are no age-restrictions for sites with demos from violent games; if there were an age verification system for which one didn't have to pay, I feel this would be better.
On the whole though, single cases of such madness have happened in the past (even before the advent of computer games) and will always happen. I don't mean to say to ignore it, but one should keep things in perspective. Otherwise crime novels, which sometimes feature some of the planning of crimes, or which mistakes someone made, must be censored, and Tom Clancy's "Executive Orders" could be held responsible for the terrorist attacks of the 11th of September.
Surprising how little people rant about the gun clubs (stronger lobby, I suppose) or indeed the fact that the killer purchased a lot of ammo. Counterstrike does not tell you where to go to get guns and ammunition, yet this problem is hardly discussed.
Sorry, I just notice that I am going on a bit. The idiocy of the mass media and the level of stupidity of the overall discussion is quite infuriating.
Marcel
I happen to hear a lot about the Erfurt tragedy, since I am in Germany. On a little technical note, among the date were 12 teachers and one secretary, not 13 teachers. A minor point though, of course, since the job of the victims should be absolutely secondary.
I think that in rare cases, people who already have (latent) psychological problems could be influenced by games, but on the other hand many other people may find it helpful in relieving stress. After the old "porn causes rape" has become stale (and most scientists whose studies are not ridden with methodological flaws are convinced that the outlet function is far higher than the incitement function), the media have found something new, although the arguments remain the same. There have also been killers inspired by Mozart or Beethoven, and you can still listen to their music.
Furthermore, I can't talk about The Sun on this occasion, but the German equivalent "Bild" has some of the most tasteless coverage of the tragedy possible. They are not interested in any reasoned debate, they're interested in selling more papers - behind their affected grief for the victims it is easy to see how grateful they are for the happenings, when day after day they have headlines like "How much 'amoc' is in my child?" "Is one born evil?" etc.
The problem in Germany is that we do not have a proper rating system. The so-called index is a pitifully out-dated means of censorship which just can't keep up with the realities of international markets. Of course, the killer also was 19, i.e. had reached legal adulthood (which has caused one of the more desperate politicians to suggest that the age should be changed back to 21), but the fact of the matter is that there are no age-restrictions for sites with demos from violent games; if there were an age verification system for which one didn't have to pay, I feel this would be better.
On the whole though, single cases of such madness have happened in the past (even before the advent of computer games) and will always happen. I don't mean to say to ignore it, but one should keep things in perspective. Otherwise crime novels, which sometimes feature some of the planning of crimes, or which mistakes someone made, must be censored, and Tom Clancy's "Executive Orders" could be held responsible for the terrorist attacks of the 11th of September.
Surprising how little people rant about the gun clubs (stronger lobby, I suppose) or indeed the fact that the killer purchased a lot of ammo. Counterstrike does not tell you where to go to get guns and ammunition, yet this problem is hardly discussed.
Sorry, I just notice that I am going on a bit. The idiocy of the mass media and the level of stupidity of the overall discussion is quite infuriating.
Marcel
I was happy to see some people with realistic views here. Just as I am tired of the media focussing on the computer game, I am also tired of the typical games don't make people violent argumant.
If the arguments where to be placed without going to the extremes I think we would get more productive debates.
The people who commit these crimes are obviously unstable. Theres no doubt in anyones mind, as I see it, that this was not caused by the video games. But what effect did the video game have on this disturbed individual. On normal people, hypnotists can place suggestions in people minds to react extreme to certain words etc... So it can be concluded that the our own subconcious mind can react in ways that we are not aware of. In a deranged mind songs/games are constantly placing these violent premises. Desensitization is already recognised as a side effect to prolonged exposure to certain medium. So I'm not saying that the game made him this way, but I am saying it had a part to play.
Now another question I'd like to raise is why do so many people want violent games to be so realistic? Why so defensive? What 'need' is this game satisfying in normal minds?
If the arguments where to be placed without going to the extremes I think we would get more productive debates.
The people who commit these crimes are obviously unstable. Theres no doubt in anyones mind, as I see it, that this was not caused by the video games. But what effect did the video game have on this disturbed individual. On normal people, hypnotists can place suggestions in people minds to react extreme to certain words etc... So it can be concluded that the our own subconcious mind can react in ways that we are not aware of. In a deranged mind songs/games are constantly placing these violent premises. Desensitization is already recognised as a side effect to prolonged exposure to certain medium. So I'm not saying that the game made him this way, but I am saying it had a part to play.
Now another question I'd like to raise is why do so many people want violent games to be so realistic? Why so defensive? What 'need' is this game satisfying in normal minds?
Again once a young person commits an offence like this massecre the world of video games is the first to be blame, now wheres the originallity in that?
People need to find a new thing to point their fingers at. Video games are just prtend, even though now many are taking on real life plots, like GTA3 and to a lesser extent Counter Strike, video games are still just games and thus Petend. Myself and my friends all enjoy violent games where we can kill people and each other and have a laugh about it, that doesn't mean that when we get into some trouble in our lives we gonna kill a number of people.
All in all around the world we need to tighten gun control to prevent such clearly disturbed people from having access to firearms. Why blame video games for "everything" when it clearly isn't.
People need to find a new thing to point their fingers at. Video games are just prtend, even though now many are taking on real life plots, like GTA3 and to a lesser extent Counter Strike, video games are still just games and thus Petend. Myself and my friends all enjoy violent games where we can kill people and each other and have a laugh about it, that doesn't mean that when we get into some trouble in our lives we gonna kill a number of people.
All in all around the world we need to tighten gun control to prevent such clearly disturbed people from having access to firearms. Why blame video games for "everything" when it clearly isn't.
I know people have already said this, but I. Am. Sick. And. Tired. Of the Mail, and its other shock horror affiliates blaming games for all the world tragedies. 'Did the terrorists practice on this computer game?' was a response from, yes, Spetember 11. WHAT? Yes, MS2002 lets you fly into buildings, but that does not mean it should be banned. That was not the cause of the attack. Other, far more imoportant things were. And now tihs, after the Columbine massacre really is the iscing on the cake.
A boy, goes into his school and kills 16/17 people - Terrible. Yes, it was horrific what happened, and so the Mail et al say games could have caused it. Hmmm. A) Member of a gun club? B) Movies portray REAL violence, not digitsed (and with options to turn off) blood and gore. Games like GTA have been around for a few years. Total Recall cam out ages ago, as did Nightmare on Elm Strett, bla bla bla. I have killed a thousand 'people' on games, and i have not physicly harmed any other human in my life, except a little playfight every now and then. I bet a lot of spoondulies that not one other user of this site has either (or if thay had it was an accident). It is noth the intention of the makers of the games to have people shoot real people in real life. It is the intentio of a few maniacs, with access to guns (a slightly larger problem I think) and a mental/emotional state that anything provokes them violently.
Games are not real. They sometime portray reality, and a lot of the time, i find very violent games (GTA3, SOFII) too violent - Stupid, over the top, not neccessary at all etc etc. But they do not incourage you to kill in REALITY!!!!!!
A boy, goes into his school and kills 16/17 people - Terrible. Yes, it was horrific what happened, and so the Mail et al say games could have caused it. Hmmm. A) Member of a gun club? B) Movies portray REAL violence, not digitsed (and with options to turn off) blood and gore. Games like GTA have been around for a few years. Total Recall cam out ages ago, as did Nightmare on Elm Strett, bla bla bla. I have killed a thousand 'people' on games, and i have not physicly harmed any other human in my life, except a little playfight every now and then. I bet a lot of spoondulies that not one other user of this site has either (or if thay had it was an accident). It is noth the intention of the makers of the games to have people shoot real people in real life. It is the intentio of a few maniacs, with access to guns (a slightly larger problem I think) and a mental/emotional state that anything provokes them violently.
Games are not real. They sometime portray reality, and a lot of the time, i find very violent games (GTA3, SOFII) too violent - Stupid, over the top, not neccessary at all etc etc. But they do not incourage you to kill in REALITY!!!!!!
Whenever some tragedy occurs, for some reason people always need someone to blame.
People don't want to accept that a boy can do such evil things, and they want to believe that something led him to it. Since the gunman is now dead, victims (lovers, families to the killed) and people in general, want someone to punish or blame for this atrocity. Since the gunman is dead, they can't see him punished for his crime yet leaving it as it is somehow seems incomplete.
That's what happened in the Columbine school. Two mad highly weird gunmen turned on people in their school. Victims launched court cases against some games companies as they wanted to blame someone. They wanted to feel that some justice had been made, that their sons or daughters died but they had done the best they could in punishing what they believed was the secondary cause of this act.
Most of the people that blame computer games however I'm sure have never played the ones in question. After police investigations show that the gunman played computer games, they automatically point the blame on them. "He played a game in which you shoot people" therefore it's made him want to shoot over people. A load of rubbish if you ask me, and to blame Half Life Counter-strike is even more ridiculous.
I used to play that game a lot. The game involved good against bad - counter-terrorists against terrorists. Over various maps you have to either kill the opposing team or complete an objective such as rescuing hostages or planting bombs, for those who have not played the game. How you can relate that game to a murder spree in a school I have no idea. The situations are completely different - the only thing they have in common is they both use guns. Whoa...
Surely the fact that some people can get hold of guns much easily then they should be able to do, has more of an effect then playing a computer game? Surely, the fact that people can readily find information on the Internet about material such as making explosives is another factor which could be blamed for the Columbine School Killings when homemade pipe bombs were made and planted in the school. To blame on computer games in my opinion is just lazy.
Computer games are recreation. I'm an avid fan of shooting games yet I don't go around shooting people in real life do I? Why? Because I have morals. When I run someone over in a game like Grand Theft Auto 3, my morals tell me that is okay. No one really died, just a graphic made of some pixels. In Soldier of Fortune 2, the upcoming PC game, I hear that you can shoot people's ears off; the realism and the amount of hit spots on an enemy’s body are phenomenal. However real it looks, or however evil that might be to do in real life, it's not real so my morals tell me that is okay.
And this is basically the thing I blame when things like this happen. I blame morals. This boy obviously had no morals. He obviously was suicidal, but his morals were not great enough to stop him from killing people. He probably felt that if he was to die, he should take the people that made his life hell down with him. I’m not sure whether the boy was bullied, or whether he had no friends but something obviously made him feel bad. Maybe the school dealt with him incorrectly by expelling him, maybe his misbehaving was a way of crying out for help. Maybe the parents didn't have a good enough relationship with their son. Maybe if they did, they could have sat down and talked with him, made him feel better about himself and resolve the problem before this had happened.
A computer game cannot make someone do something evil, if someone does something evil, they must have already been evil, whether it's through genetics or through the environment they have grown up in - the family. I don't think computer games is an environment to grow up in. Maybe computer games were a factor in this boy's actions, but if kids are taught at an early age the differences between right and wrong surely such a situation will never arise. The flame of evil and maybe insecurity was burning in that boy, one witness talked of his eyes "burning with evil". Computer games may fuel this evil but it certainly doesn't start it. That's my opinion anyway.
People don't want to accept that a boy can do such evil things, and they want to believe that something led him to it. Since the gunman is now dead, victims (lovers, families to the killed) and people in general, want someone to punish or blame for this atrocity. Since the gunman is dead, they can't see him punished for his crime yet leaving it as it is somehow seems incomplete.
That's what happened in the Columbine school. Two mad highly weird gunmen turned on people in their school. Victims launched court cases against some games companies as they wanted to blame someone. They wanted to feel that some justice had been made, that their sons or daughters died but they had done the best they could in punishing what they believed was the secondary cause of this act.
Most of the people that blame computer games however I'm sure have never played the ones in question. After police investigations show that the gunman played computer games, they automatically point the blame on them. "He played a game in which you shoot people" therefore it's made him want to shoot over people. A load of rubbish if you ask me, and to blame Half Life Counter-strike is even more ridiculous.
I used to play that game a lot. The game involved good against bad - counter-terrorists against terrorists. Over various maps you have to either kill the opposing team or complete an objective such as rescuing hostages or planting bombs, for those who have not played the game. How you can relate that game to a murder spree in a school I have no idea. The situations are completely different - the only thing they have in common is they both use guns. Whoa...
Surely the fact that some people can get hold of guns much easily then they should be able to do, has more of an effect then playing a computer game? Surely, the fact that people can readily find information on the Internet about material such as making explosives is another factor which could be blamed for the Columbine School Killings when homemade pipe bombs were made and planted in the school. To blame on computer games in my opinion is just lazy.
Computer games are recreation. I'm an avid fan of shooting games yet I don't go around shooting people in real life do I? Why? Because I have morals. When I run someone over in a game like Grand Theft Auto 3, my morals tell me that is okay. No one really died, just a graphic made of some pixels. In Soldier of Fortune 2, the upcoming PC game, I hear that you can shoot people's ears off; the realism and the amount of hit spots on an enemy’s body are phenomenal. However real it looks, or however evil that might be to do in real life, it's not real so my morals tell me that is okay.
And this is basically the thing I blame when things like this happen. I blame morals. This boy obviously had no morals. He obviously was suicidal, but his morals were not great enough to stop him from killing people. He probably felt that if he was to die, he should take the people that made his life hell down with him. I’m not sure whether the boy was bullied, or whether he had no friends but something obviously made him feel bad. Maybe the school dealt with him incorrectly by expelling him, maybe his misbehaving was a way of crying out for help. Maybe the parents didn't have a good enough relationship with their son. Maybe if they did, they could have sat down and talked with him, made him feel better about himself and resolve the problem before this had happened.
A computer game cannot make someone do something evil, if someone does something evil, they must have already been evil, whether it's through genetics or through the environment they have grown up in - the family. I don't think computer games is an environment to grow up in. Maybe computer games were a factor in this boy's actions, but if kids are taught at an early age the differences between right and wrong surely such a situation will never arise. The flame of evil and maybe insecurity was burning in that boy, one witness talked of his eyes "burning with evil". Computer games may fuel this evil but it certainly doesn't start it. That's my opinion anyway.
(sorry for the double post)
Res€vilfan wrote:
> I'm tired of people blaming things, the guy was clearly insane and
> even if videogames did trigger something towards what he did does that
> mean games should be banished! Thats like saying no one should drink
> incase they become alcoholics!
Or like saying no one should be allowed to buy alcohol until they're 18?
Crazy idea.
I think i'm the only one with this point of view here though : )
> I'm tired of people blaming things, the guy was clearly insane and
> even if videogames did trigger something towards what he did does that
> mean games should be banished! Thats like saying no one should drink
> incase they become alcoholics!
Or like saying no one should be allowed to buy alcohol until they're 18?
Crazy idea.
I think i'm the only one with this point of view here though : )
Page: