http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1199506,00.html At last, it becomes clear - blame the game, and then hope to make money out of it Whats more ludicrous is that they plan to sue Sony, yet Sony are not responsible for producing or publishing Manhunt, only the console on which the game can be played. Personally I believe that games can act as a stimulus for 'bad' behaviour, but that the person must have some pre-disposition towards such behaviour anyway, and that a 'normal' person is able to differentiate between violence in a video game and what is acceptable behaviour in real life. If someone commits an act of violence or a crime because they saw it in a video games, then there is something wrong anyway - people who don't know/understand that 'on screen' actions such as the violence in the Manhunt game is not something to be repeated in real life need psychiatric help anyway IMHO. As appalling as it was for these parents to lose their son, passing the responsibility to games manufacturers should not be their first port of call - the questions they should be raising are IMHO why the 17 year old lad who went on to murder their son was able to obtain and play an 18 certified game? And why had the murderers parents not seen fit to stop their son from becoming 'obsessed' with this game? What was it about this guys upbringing or lifestyle that caused him to progress from seeing something in a game to murdering someone in a similar fashion? IMHO It comes down to taking personal responsibility, rather than seeking to blame someone else - the responsibility of parents is to take interest in what games their kids play, and determining whether they are suitable, and not letting them get obsessed with violent games if they are allowed to play them. The line between whats acceptable in reality and whats shown in films/games/tv/music must be instilled in their children by parents so that they do not grow up with a twisted view of life where acting out something from a film or video games is a solution to lifes problems. But this line must be drawn by parents based around their knowledge of their own childrens behaviour and attitudes - sueing the videogame makers might result in fewer violent games being produced, but doesn't address the problem where children are brought up with little understanding of the difference between acceptable attitudes and behaviour in society and those shown in the media and part of entertainment.
Its so sad its almost pathetically comical. They wont get anywhere and theyll be worse off for loosing the case.
As Will said, it all comes down to personal responsibility - in this case the parents of the victim need to realise that the killer should take full responsibility for the murder, and that they can't shift the blame anywhere else however much money they might make .... This reminds me of a case they had in the States, where two teenage boys killed someone driving down a freeway by taking pot-shots at the car with a rifle. The relatives of the victim didn't blame the teenagers, or their parents (for not keeping the gun locked up), or the shop that sold them the ammunition, but a video game maker .... seems to me that this only occurred because they stood to gain the most damages by sueing (sp?) the video game maker.
if i became a killer you'd have to sue Ati AMD Hyundai Maxtor WD Creative Arien DFI Scan Abit etc.... see its stupid.its like suing Ford or Vauxhall for making a car that a drunk driver crashes. EDIT:sorry people dud spelling
Will, as you say mate it's all down to parenting and education. There has to be separation between fantasy and reality. A child must be taught what is and what is not acceptable in 'the real world'. People who are 'stimulated' to behave in unacceptable ways by fantastical violence in whatever form have deep routed issues that go beyond the attitude that 'computer games encorage violence'. If it wasn't a computer game it'd be something else. In the past problems like this have been blamed on every media under the sun. I would say though that I can see how the highly interactive nature and graphical realism of modern (violent) computer games casues people worry as it may well provide a more pronounced trigger for immoral behaviour (in those suceptible to the stimuli) than the less interactive media of the past.
People make their own decisions in life. If they can't distinguish between reality and computer games, they need to be helped.
The only stupid thing about this case is that they aren't suing from the states. £50 million nothing; in the states they would get the verdict just for being dumb enough to sue for so little. Product liability and the blame game have gotten way out of hand here. Everyone has heard of the case of the woman spilling hot coffee on her lap she purchased from McDonalds. She sues and wins because the coffee is too hot. Yeah, that sting on your face is my hand slapping some sense into you head. By the way Gasoline and Lighter Fluid is flammable, clothes irons are hot take your clothes off first, hair dryers conduct electricity, smoking is bad for you health, cruise control does NOT mean auto pilot, listening to loud music can hurt your ears, hot coffee is hot. Now don’t blame me if you get hurt. The saddest part of this whole case is that some lawyer will take this case and some court will hear it. Now Sony is forced to defend itself and the price of the PS3 will go up.
I can see the courtroom now, the parents lawyer has just read out why they're suing, and the judge is surrounded by ambulance staff, looking like a victim of Monty Python's "World's Deadliest Joke" sketch.
Is it in the manual? Maybe the government should issue everyone with a "common sense" manual... wait, they are, its called "what todo in an emergency".
Lol It is so stupid that there isnt really ne point in discussing this ne more. If there is money to be made, someone will do what ever they can. Basically the parents are saying "My kid killed himself, therefore i want money for this". They dont take into account a) He could have had a mental disposition b) He had bad parenting In reality we should be charging the parents for letting thier child have an 18 rated game, him being 17, and him killing someone because he imitated it
I guess this was to be expected... I could get stuck in but Jetsetjimbo has said it already, and eloquently: BTW Kids generally only start to make this distinction clearly around age eight... Parental supervision is essential. What he said. That would make a nice sig. Applies to life as a whole really.
yes.. rite here here!!! lol ooo, I think the power's going..... : *AHHH, NO COMPUTER ALERT* <sirens> </sirens>
Christ... So, lets say that Joe Bloggs is watching the news. He reads about this kid who went out and killed someone. Joe thinks its a really cool thing to do, so he goes on a killing spree. Who do we sue now? Whilst they have my utmost sympathy after the death of their son- I hope these people get laughed out of court. Sam
Have the parents even buried their kid yet? They could of waited...ummm...all of 30 seconds to file suit.
i dont know how much more stupid their case will look now they found the game in the victims bedroom... more
^^ lol maybe the victim played the game and kept dying... that way they should sue sony for TWICE as much because it influenced the killer to kill him, and it influenced the victim to die
