Will Oslo massacre reignite the "Ban violent videogames!!" hysteria?

[Widjaja]

I do recall something happening in the US about some stupid kids who decided to do a grand theft auto of a cop car and related it to playing GTA.

I DO believe these games can make even sane people lose touch with reality but not to such an extreme as the main subject of this topic and the above.

I have had friends who immediately think of the name of the car in GTA instead of the real name of the car in the real World including myself.

Say seeing a Honda CR-X and instead of immediately recognizing the car as a Honda the first name which comes to mind is Blista Compact.
Or seeing a Vespa and the first name comes to mind is Faggio.

The worst case I know of personally is a guy who had played GTA San Andreas literally nearly a day straight before having to go to work in the morning.
While he was driving to work he saw some tagging on a wall, stopped his car got out and was about to walk over to it to spray over it to ad to his 99 tags he has to complete in the game.
Once he realized he didn't even have a spray can in his hand he quickly jumped back into his car an drove off.

 

[Muhad]

All we have to do is turn on the TV or go to the Movies and most of what we see is full of violence. So why the hype over computer games?

 

[WhiteLotus]

All we have to do is turn on the TV or go to the Movies and most of what we see is full of violence. So why the hype over computer games?

Because people are stupid.

 

[entropy13]

I doubt it would be banned. And how is the link between him and CoD established?

In CoD, once the guy no longer moves, he's no longer alive. You don't waste time and bullets shooting at those no longer moving.

In Utoya, those who feigned death still got shot. Why? Not because of CoD for obvious reasons, but because he most probably got actual training in such things.

 

[The_Ish]

Let's debunk this right here and now.

He said himself that he felt the game was "good practice". So in other words, he had already decided he would do it. The game did not incite him to kill people. Case closed, I should be a politician! Oh wait, I'm not that stupid..

 

[Bjorn_Of_Iceland]

"It is probably the best military simulator out there ...
..You can more or less completely simulate actual operations."

He called ModerWarfare a military simulator. That alone should warrant that his words on how gaming helped him kill is whacked.

 

[Frick]

If this jackass Breivik can get CoD banned Ill send him flowers in hell. The fanboy mental breakdown would be worth every petal.

Hell is actually the airport outside Trondheim, so you can almost do it now.

 

[TheMailMan78]

I told you people that "Don't speak Russian" level would come back to bite us in the ass. But no one would listen. Well time to eat your peas people.

 

[newtekie1]

http://techland.time.com/2011/08/01...lent-video-games-in-wake-of-breivik-killings/

Yes...

 

[btarunr]

The Supreme Court recently ruled that video games are protected by 1st amendment rights in the USA. US citizens have nothing to be worried about.

Those in Europe though...watch out.

And yet EA was put under pressure to remove the part of MOH multiplayer where you get to kill US troops as Taliban?

 

[qubit]

http://techland.time.com/2011/08/01...lent-video-games-in-wake-of-breivik-killings/

Yes...

Predictable knee-jerk reaction. I'll bet it takes a long time for them to come back, if ever.

 

[TheMailMan78]

And yet EA was put under pressure to remove the part of MOH multiplayer where you get to kill US troops as Taliban?

It was a PR issue. Not a law issue. No one forced EA to do it.

 

[THRiLL KiLL]

they could put the same logic for watching movies.

 

[btarunr]

It was a PR issue. Not a law issue. No one forced EA to do it.

I think people hated EA more for removing it. So it must not have been a PR issue. The kind of people who protested the killing US soldiers part (random bimbo/yuppie from [insert random news station], families of servicemen who don't play videogames, etc., were never MOH's target audience.

 

[TheMailMan78]

I think people hated EA more for removing it. So it must not have been a PR issue. The kind of people who protested the killing US soldiers part (random bimbo/yuppie from [insert random news station], families of servicemen who don't play videogames, etc., were never MOH's target audience.

A LOT of servicemen play video games. As a matter of fact I am willing to bet the majority of them do and during a time of war the last thing any company would want to do in the US is come off as "insensitive" to the military. Its a PR suicide.

It has to do with a current conflict thing. 10 years from the time the wars end it wont be a big deal. But the fact we are still engaged means the wound is still open.

Bottom line is no law told EA to remove it. It was a "moral" decision. One some may not agree with but still no law forced them.

 

[HELLSPAWNPR]

Video games dont kill people , people kill people. Since the dawn of time man has been killing each other. So this is nothing new.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Video games dont kill people , people kill people. Since the dawn of time man has been killing each other. So this is nothing new.

Cain was a CoD noob.

 

[HELLSPAWNPR]

lol

 

[btarunr]

A LOT of servicemen play video games. As a matter of fact I am willing to bet the majority of them do and during a time of war the last thing any company would want to do in the US is come off as "insensitive" to the military.

I'm referring to the families of servicemen [of those who may have died/injured on duty]. I know servicemen do play videogames, I'm sure servicemen find nothing bad about Russians killing US Army in BFBC2 or SEAL commandos getting headshot by terrorists in Counter Strike, and so I'm sure servicemen themselves wouldn't find it a big deal with MOH.

It has to do with a current conflict thing. 10 years from the time the wars end it wont be a big deal. But the fact we are still engaged means the wound is still open.

Global terrorism is a "current" thing, too. And yet nobody raises a brow about SAS or SEAL commandos getting fragged by terrorists in CS.

Bottom line is no law told EA to remove it. It was a "moral" decision. One some may not agree with but still no law forced them.

It might not have been a PR issue, since "Freedom of expression" activists and many from the gaming community hated EA for giving into the pressure, wherever it came from.

My point is this: While there is no legal obligation yet on what kind of games can be distributed in the US, "having 1st Ammendment to protect against ban on [insert type] of videogames" is a moot argument, because if some group of people doesn't like some kind of game to be in the market, there will be pressure on the publisher to withdraw/alter it. I was responding to this post, in which Ford said "sucks to be you,Europe, we Americans can have anything in our markets":

The Supreme Court recently ruled that video games are protected by 1st amendment rights in the USA. US citizens have nothing to be worried about.

Those in Europe though...watch out.

 

[TheMailMan78]

I'm referring to the families of servicemen [of those who may have died/injured on duty]. I know servicemen do play videogames, I'm sure servicemen find nothing bad about Russians killing US Army in BFBC2 or SEAL commandos getting headshot by terrorists in Counter Strike, and so I'm sure servicemen themselves wouldn't find it a big deal with MOH.



Global terrorism is a "current" thing, too. And yet nobody raises a brow about SAS or SEAL commandos getting fragged by terrorists in CS.



It might not have been a PR issue, since "Freedom of expression" activists and many from the gaming community hated EA for giving into the pressure, wherever it came from.

My point is this: While there is no legal obligation yet on what kind of games can be distributed in the US, "having 1st Ammendment to protect against ban on [insert type] of videogames" is moot argument, if someone doesn't like some kind of game to be in the market, there will be pressure on the publisher to withdraw/alter it. I was responding to this post, in which Ford said "sucks to be you, rest of the world, we Americans can have anything in our markets":

Some servicemen I would agree. Some not so much. I know a few personally who would rather not fight as Taliban as they just got back from deployment fighting the bastards.

But I digress......The news and such would have made a shit storm if they left it the way it was. That would have caused WAY more pressure then the gamers themselves could ever provide. EA could have said "FU" to the media and relesed it anyway. And it would have sold just fine I'm sure......until Walmart pulled it......then Gamestop.......etc. Media runs this nation man. Not common sense.

Only thing the 1st amendment will do is keep the jackass from banning them completely.