The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
It's an ongoing and insoluble debate as to whether videogames, movies, bookes or even music played backwards can incite murder. The reality is that anything can be part of the jigsaw if someone is near the edge. It could be something as simple as missing the bus that finally throws that switch in someones mind.
At the same time games might fuel something latent but the link is so tenous as to make censorship, as always, pointless and impossible.
I have another point, a little closer to home. Did SR think it appropriate to put links to GTA3 and State Of Emergency in this article that led to the sales page? For a topic under debate right here as a possibly emotive issue it seems a little...insensitive.
No biggie really but you do such a good job by providing these forums that it seems a shame to waste it with what "could" by construed cynically.
At the same time games might fuel something latent but the link is so tenous as to make censorship, as always, pointless and impossible.
I have another point, a little closer to home. Did SR think it appropriate to put links to GTA3 and State Of Emergency in this article that led to the sales page? For a topic under debate right here as a possibly emotive issue it seems a little...insensitive.
No biggie really but you do such a good job by providing these forums that it seems a shame to waste it with what "could" by construed cynically.
Some people get it the wrong way around - the person doesn't become violent because the games make them violent, maybe they were violent to begin with, and like playing violent games? If you played a lot of football, and someone found FIFA in your bedroom, what conclusion would they come to? That the game made you like football, or you bought it because you already did?
The argument against games is flawed, to say the least, and if it wasn't Counter-Strike that triggered some violent emotion, it may well have been the 10 'o clock news. I think the fact that the kid's parents didn't even know he had been expelled says a lot. Would you let your son, a depressive loner teenager with no friends, carry a gun?
The argument against games is flawed, to say the least, and if it wasn't Counter-Strike that triggered some violent emotion, it may well have been the 10 'o clock news. I think the fact that the kid's parents didn't even know he had been expelled says a lot. Would you let your son, a depressive loner teenager with no friends, carry a gun?
Personally, I blame Posh Spice. It's a well known fact she missed school once, and I expect that had a lasting affect on the boy.
*sigh*
*sigh*
Mr.Snuggly wrote:
> Some people get it the wrong way around - the person doesn't become
> violent because the games make them violent, maybe they were violent
> to begin with, and like playing violent games? If you played a lot of
> football, and someone found FIFA in your bedroom, what conclusion
> would they come to? That the game made you like football, or you
> bought it because you already did?
But in fairness there's a good chance that the game would make you like football even more. While it may not have a very strong influence, this could be because you'd play football for real instead, which also contributed.
However, violent passtimes are less readily available (the german kid's 'gun club' probably being one of them though). So a kid with some violent inclinations would mainly culture these feelings in a videogame, while a budding footballer could play real football to build interest, before getting the videogame.
> The argument against games is flawed, to say the least, and if it
> wasn't Counter-Strike that triggered some violent emotion, it may well
> have been the 10 'o clock news.
my opinion on this was expressed in my earlier post, so i'll not re-state it.
> I think the fact that the kid's
> parents didn't even know he had been expelled says a lot. Would you
> let your son, a depressive loner teenager with no friends, carry a
> gun?
This i agree with wholly. Didn't know his parents didn't even know he'd been expelled though, incredible. Was that a recent thing? I'd have thought it'd have to be...
> Some people get it the wrong way around - the person doesn't become
> violent because the games make them violent, maybe they were violent
> to begin with, and like playing violent games? If you played a lot of
> football, and someone found FIFA in your bedroom, what conclusion
> would they come to? That the game made you like football, or you
> bought it because you already did?
But in fairness there's a good chance that the game would make you like football even more. While it may not have a very strong influence, this could be because you'd play football for real instead, which also contributed.
However, violent passtimes are less readily available (the german kid's 'gun club' probably being one of them though). So a kid with some violent inclinations would mainly culture these feelings in a videogame, while a budding footballer could play real football to build interest, before getting the videogame.
> The argument against games is flawed, to say the least, and if it
> wasn't Counter-Strike that triggered some violent emotion, it may well
> have been the 10 'o clock news.
my opinion on this was expressed in my earlier post, so i'll not re-state it.
> I think the fact that the kid's
> parents didn't even know he had been expelled says a lot. Would you
> let your son, a depressive loner teenager with no friends, carry a
> gun?
This i agree with wholly. Didn't know his parents didn't even know he'd been expelled though, incredible. Was that a recent thing? I'd have thought it'd have to be...
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!
I saw another kid the other day running around with a pencil case thinking he was James Bond from the games Goldeneye.
.... Just saying...
.... Just saying...
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 : )
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 : )
(sorry for the double post)
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.
Page: