The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Full story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3104892.stm
Yes, someone posted a link for this before, but in this one some halfbaked sheman is trying to sue Rockstar as it should "bear some responsibility for the childrens actions, as it sells violent games to them". Wake up, nimrod. There is an age restriction on them, and its not as if Rockstar can sell each indivual GTA to someone over 17/18. If any one should take rthe blame for this, it should be the kids themselves, and then the parents.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3104892.stm
Yes, someone posted a link for this before, but in this one some halfbaked sheman is trying to sue Rockstar as it should "bear some responsibility for the childrens actions, as it sells violent games to them". Wake up, nimrod. There is an age restriction on them, and its not as if Rockstar can sell each indivual GTA to someone over 17/18. If any one should take rthe blame for this, it should be the kids themselves, and then the parents.
They don't sound to concerned that they had access to a shot gun though. If they didn't have access to the gun would they have tried to do what they did?
The games have age ratings for a reason as do films. If it is seen as unsuitable for an certain audiance then it says so on the box. If the child plays it then it falls, at least partly, on to the parents for not realisning that their child was playing an age restricted game.
I've played GTA but I've been told that it's wrong to kill people in the real world and so I don't do it just because I can in a virtual world. Children need to know the difference between the two and so they should be taught this and maybe they wouldn't try to reinact what they did on a game.
At 16 you should be able to tell what it right and wrong unless there is some reason why you can't and in that case it's not a good idea to let the child play violent games in case of reinactment, like there was in this case.
The games have age ratings for a reason as do films. If it is seen as unsuitable for an certain audiance then it says so on the box. If the child plays it then it falls, at least partly, on to the parents for not realisning that their child was playing an age restricted game.
I've played GTA but I've been told that it's wrong to kill people in the real world and so I don't do it just because I can in a virtual world. Children need to know the difference between the two and so they should be taught this and maybe they wouldn't try to reinact what they did on a game.
At 16 you should be able to tell what it right and wrong unless there is some reason why you can't and in that case it's not a good idea to let the child play violent games in case of reinactment, like there was in this case.
FantasyMeister wrote:
> "...the law is that if you make a product that is linked in a
> chain of events, and but for that link the final tragedy would not
> have occurred, you are liable. You don't have to have little angels
> turned into killers"
>
> - Lawyer suing Take Two. Shouldn't be he suing the gun manufacturer?
If he's taking that line then you could equally blame the children themselves. Death penalty, finish them off, end of story and less hassle all round.
> "...the law is that if you make a product that is linked in a
> chain of events, and but for that link the final tragedy would not
> have occurred, you are liable. You don't have to have little angels
> turned into killers"
>
> - Lawyer suing Take Two. Shouldn't be he suing the gun manufacturer?
If he's taking that line then you could equally blame the children themselves. Death penalty, finish them off, end of story and less hassle all round.
"We find that it is simply too far a leap from shooting characters on a video screen (an activity undertaken by millions) to shooting people in a classroom (an activity undertaken by a handful..." hehehe.
And hehehe at the whole situation. Not once have a i felt like killing someone after playing GTA... infact it makes you feel less like killing someone.
And hehehe at the whole situation. Not once have a i felt like killing someone after playing GTA... infact it makes you feel less like killing someone.
The link is tenous at the very best.
This case will bomb.
This case will bomb.
"...the law is that if you make a product that is linked in a chain of events, and but for that link the final tragedy would not have occurred, you are liable. You don't have to have little angels turned into killers"
- Lawyer suing Take Two. Shouldn't be he suing the gun manufacturer?
- Lawyer suing Take Two. Shouldn't be he suing the gun manufacturer?
Whatever I do in a computer game I always go out and do in real life immediately after. Makes Devil May Cry a buggger, I can tell you.
The industry doesn't force the kids to go out and shoot people. They do it themselves, and they should have more sense than to do something so stupid as that.
2 kids are bored, so they go shoot passing cars and kill someone.
Well, my first reaction wouldn't be to jump to the defence of the game they were acting out.
If they really were copying what they'd seen on GTA, then it was a factor in a man's death.
Of course, there are other factors, other places to lay blame, but unless people start taking video game age ratings seriously, I can't see that the industry has totally clean hands.
Well, my first reaction wouldn't be to jump to the defence of the game they were acting out.
If they really were copying what they'd seen on GTA, then it was a factor in a man's death.
Of course, there are other factors, other places to lay blame, but unless people start taking video game age ratings seriously, I can't see that the industry has totally clean hands.
Full story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3104892.stm
Yes, someone posted a link for this before, but in this one some halfbaked sheman is trying to sue Rockstar as it should "bear some responsibility for the childrens actions, as it sells violent games to them". Wake up, nimrod. There is an age restriction on them, and its not as if Rockstar can sell each indivual GTA to someone over 17/18. If any one should take rthe blame for this, it should be the kids themselves, and then the parents.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3104892.stm
Yes, someone posted a link for this before, but in this one some halfbaked sheman is trying to sue Rockstar as it should "bear some responsibility for the childrens actions, as it sells violent games to them". Wake up, nimrod. There is an age restriction on them, and its not as if Rockstar can sell each indivual GTA to someone over 17/18. If any one should take rthe blame for this, it should be the kids themselves, and then the parents.