The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
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 : )
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...
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!
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...
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*
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?
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.
I heard the Police were looking into a claim that SLipkont were to blame. They found a Slipknot CD in the boys room which had lyrics chattin about killing teacher.
Well, although my own knee jerk reaction whenever something like this occours is to come to the defence of videogames as a whole, i've had to question myself here.
The arguments against blaming video games that usually come up are usually seem to be predominantly from a few lines of thought:
1. Video games aren't real, and people should be able to seperate the two.
2. Video games are just one of several media that depict violence particularly graphically, and are no more responsible for such tragedies that tv, films and the likes.
3. Violent acts happen in such frequency when video games aren't envolved, and always have throughout hisotry, that it is inevitable that sometimes they will be linked, but this is usually only coincidental.
But i've had to take a fresh look at these things:
1. Well, while there are now age restrictions on certain video games to bring them into line with, for example, films, in practical effect they really aren'ttaken as seriously, and people below a restricted age can still get access to the game in question even more easily than, for example, an 18 rated film.
But of course, the recent german tragedy centred around the actions of a 19 year old, so age restrictions, at least for a year of his life, could never have been relevant. Maybe some 'damage' was done playing unsuitable games when he was much younger, but it still points to the possibility that age is not a suitable immunity from games' psychological effects.
Then again, maybe he was just a plain nut. What should be done for/to/about people like that? I really don't know.
2. Yes, violence is evident in other media, but in video games, there seems a pretty heafty distinction that the player atually carries out the violent acts themselves. The effects of this? I don't know, but surely the difference really is significant between viewer of simulated violence and participant in simulated violence.
3. Well, when some mass killing takes place, people look for a reason, a motive in the mind of the killer. Sometimes it's religion, sometimes it's mental disfunction, sometimes racial hatred, maybe just plain hatred. And sometimes video games are envolved.
But it seems to me that in recent years, virtually all high school shootings have had one of these factors, video games, as a common presence. Is this coincidence, because video games are played by so many, that anyone is likely to have been exposed to them? Well, from claims of how intensively the games are played by most perpitrators of these acts, i'd have to say no. It seems to trend for these killers to have been exceptionally 'into' violent games.
So here's where i make the controversial bit:
Are video games in some way the cause? I say yes.
So what do we do about it? If people started to take age restrictions more seriously, it'd be a start. Maybe if the criteria for classifications were tightened up too. Of course, it won't solve everything, but i think it will definitely help. And if a classroom of children have their life spared because you and i don't get to shoot people without showing our ID, and everyone has to wait until their 18th to get that new blood frenzied game, tell me that isn't a price worth paying.
DD
The arguments against blaming video games that usually come up are usually seem to be predominantly from a few lines of thought:
1. Video games aren't real, and people should be able to seperate the two.
2. Video games are just one of several media that depict violence particularly graphically, and are no more responsible for such tragedies that tv, films and the likes.
3. Violent acts happen in such frequency when video games aren't envolved, and always have throughout hisotry, that it is inevitable that sometimes they will be linked, but this is usually only coincidental.
But i've had to take a fresh look at these things:
1. Well, while there are now age restrictions on certain video games to bring them into line with, for example, films, in practical effect they really aren'ttaken as seriously, and people below a restricted age can still get access to the game in question even more easily than, for example, an 18 rated film.
But of course, the recent german tragedy centred around the actions of a 19 year old, so age restrictions, at least for a year of his life, could never have been relevant. Maybe some 'damage' was done playing unsuitable games when he was much younger, but it still points to the possibility that age is not a suitable immunity from games' psychological effects.
Then again, maybe he was just a plain nut. What should be done for/to/about people like that? I really don't know.
2. Yes, violence is evident in other media, but in video games, there seems a pretty heafty distinction that the player atually carries out the violent acts themselves. The effects of this? I don't know, but surely the difference really is significant between viewer of simulated violence and participant in simulated violence.
3. Well, when some mass killing takes place, people look for a reason, a motive in the mind of the killer. Sometimes it's religion, sometimes it's mental disfunction, sometimes racial hatred, maybe just plain hatred. And sometimes video games are envolved.
But it seems to me that in recent years, virtually all high school shootings have had one of these factors, video games, as a common presence. Is this coincidence, because video games are played by so many, that anyone is likely to have been exposed to them? Well, from claims of how intensively the games are played by most perpitrators of these acts, i'd have to say no. It seems to trend for these killers to have been exceptionally 'into' violent games.
So here's where i make the controversial bit:
Are video games in some way the cause? I say yes.
So what do we do about it? If people started to take age restrictions more seriously, it'd be a start. Maybe if the criteria for classifications were tightened up too. Of course, it won't solve everything, but i think it will definitely help. And if a classroom of children have their life spared because you and i don't get to shoot people without showing our ID, and everyone has to wait until their 18th to get that new blood frenzied game, tell me that isn't a price worth paying.
DD
These incidents being blamed on computer games is just SSSSSOOOOOOOOOO stupid!
The games industry is something like the market leader in the media business now. BILLIONS of people play video games! And incidents like this happen once or twice a year. hmmmm..... doesn't look to me like violent video games have that much of an influence of people then!
:)
The games industry is something like the market leader in the media business now. BILLIONS of people play video games! And incidents like this happen once or twice a year. hmmmm..... doesn't look to me like violent video games have that much of an influence of people then!
:)
Page: