Yea, yea every time a new form of media begins to take foot everyone feels the need to say they lack "social responsibility". I'd tell you what part of my body they could kiss but I'm sure you all could guess.

Son of a bitch should feel lucky video games are unlike film and music which has products that can be veiwed and listened to on basically any kind of hardware that supports dvd/cd playback. Unlike console game which is company specific. Imagine if all games could be played on all systems (kind of like PC games work). In his mind all hell would break loose, pigs would fly and Jesus would have to make an encore performance to save us all.

Law and Order: Double or Nothing

For US readers, to explain the current climate in the UK;

Our current Labour goverment is about as popular as syphalis in the UK at the moment. In large part due to Iraq, but also because they're proven themselves repeatedly to be an incompitent bunch of corruput fools.

At the moment Labour is thrashing around trying to latch itself to ever popularist ideal out there to try and prevent themselves being booted out of power come the election.

Also Kieth Vas is an idiot who gets his policies from the Sun newspaper (as infact most of Labour does).

Also it is worth noting that the James Bulger murder evokes the same sort of strong reaction in the UK as Columbine does in the US.

It comes down to just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Social responsibility is lacking in many games that come out. And I don't mean games being responsible for violence, I think that's just a crock personally. But I'm sure people remember the huge stink we all kicked up about Lambourne's attention seeking V-Tech Rampage, that was us as gamers.

There were two sides to that argument and there's two sides to this one. I enjoy video games, I enjoy the entertainment provided by this form of media more than movies or TV (I still hold books above video games but that's a personal preference), but I do think there comes a point where the industry really needs to take a step back and look at what they're producing.

Manhunt 2 (from what I've seen) looks like the glorification of the most brutal ways of killing people. The screenshots I've seen of the game and the reports I've read definitely make it a game that I won't play.

V-Tech Rampage (while crude) was screamed about because of the content and the treatment of said content, just as SCMRPG was (though SCMRPG handles it more delicately and with much more thought put in) and its connection to real life violence. Even Day of Defeat and other World War 1/2 based games are likely considered inappropriate in some quarters.

Sensitively handled, these issues can be made into video games that bring more awareness, whether it's of the issues involved or even the weaponry used at that point in time. But there is a point where people should take a look at the game and ask whether they're treating it appropriately.

I wouldn't say I'm immune to moral panic, I don't think anyone on either side of the fence is. But I would like to think that I can look at both sides of it sensibly. If they can handle an issue like James Bulger's abduction and murder with the necessary sensitivity, then it could be used as a tool to warn people of what can happen if they're not careful.

If handled in an insensitive manner, I'm sure that parents and critics won't be the only ones screaming. Just look at how people reacted to the release of V-Tech Rampage in the gaming community.

For those who aren't aware of the circumstances surrounding James Bulger, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bulger should explain it.

I still think it all comes down to "just because you can, should you?"

Social Responiblity.. maybe i'm missing something, but what social responsiblity? You either like the game, or you don't. If you don't want the game, you won't buy it. If anything.. this social responsiblity is just an idea to push what people don't like and say it's wrong, and for that sole reason should be ban.

If anything, responsiblity is a two way street, everyone need their share. The game has done its job to honesty show it's content.. if it hid anything, it wouldn't be a responsible action.

It just seems like a lot of unreasonable bullcrap. Because people find the game rude, let's ban it, as if people are stupid and can't decide what they like or don't like.

a new video game that shows footage of the abduction of James Bulger

He's wrong on just about every point.

The game is two years old, and only features a single still image - one that's already been reproduced hundreds of times on TV, in newspapers and magazines and on the internet.

I sent the following email to Vaz... hopefully I'll get more than a form letter back. If there's a reply, I'll also post it here.

Sir,

I'm writing to express severe disappointment at your continued intentionally incorrect portrayal of the video gaming industry, specifically in reference to comments you made on July 21st in the House of Commons.

You referenced the BBFC's decision to refuse classification for Rockstar Games' Manhunt 2 game, and then went on to describe "a new video game that shows footage of the abduction of James Bulger".

This, Mr. Vaz, is a blatant distortion of the facts, which stems either from your willful ignorance, slack research or bias against the video games industry - any of which is utterly unacceptable from an elected official.

The game in question is Law & Order: Double or Nothing, released by Legacy Interactive in 2003 - four years ago. Calling this game "new" is a bizarre interpretation of the dates in question.

In addition to that fact, the game does not in fact feature any footage of James Bulger's abduction; instead, a single frame of the CCTV footage appears in the background of one scene. The image is not given any special attention, it is not a featured point of the game by any stretch of the imagination.

At this stage, it almost seems irrelevant to point out that in the game you play as law enforcement officials and legal professionals, rather than any criminal element.

Can we expect further mischaracterization from you, sir, or will you endeavour to make this - very important - discussion worthwhile by actually researching your allegations before making them?

I hope you take the latter path, Mr. Vaz. By continuing to cheapen the entire debate with lazy accusations, you are simply making the whole problem worse. Sensationalism and half-truths should be the trade of tabloid newspapers, not Members of Parliament.

Yours,

Paul Cosgrove
Belfast, N. Ireland
Friday June 22nd, 2007

I think I might have come across a little angrier than I'd have liked, but dammit, this pisses me off.

Showing the ugliness of war and how churches and cathedrals are not respected in war is EXTREMELY socially responsible. Showing this is part of the lesson about avoiding war. Hot air from a politician? Who knew?

[...] In my opinion it is not the developer’s job to be responsible, it is the people who buy and play the games job to be responsible. If a parent allows a child to play a game which they have been told is not suitable for children. Any actions of the child’s resulting from them playing the game are the parent’s fault, not the game, and not the developer’s. (From Game Politics.) Note: I apologise for the clumsily manipulated image above but I couldn’t resist. For my American readers the reference is to a character in a British comedy show from the ’80s called Herr Flick who Jack Straw bears a striking resemblance to. [...]

I'm sorry Zerodash you racist little pig, but kindly sod off with your generalisation of British people due to the ineptitude of a couple of old-fashioned, ignorant political halfwits.

Two games mean the entire industry needs to be regulated, that's one large umbrella you carry, Vaz. Don't assume game creators have a responsibility to society, that's your f-ing job.

@ Zerodash Says:
Don't knock all Brits because of their stupid politicians, there are plenty of UK citizens on this very site who share your frustration (more so because it's their games being banned).

@ Ivresse and Meggie

Zerodash isn't insulting British people - he's suggesting that the politicans are, by treating us like children who can't make up our own minds about what we see/play.

The question is- this is a man that you will never meet, and will have no influence on your life what so ever .... soooo, why do you care if he has a less than inspired vision of what it means to be British.

For the record, I think that 99% of Americans are utter morons as well, myself included from time to time. American politicians are morons somewhere in the vicinity of 150-175% of the time ....

Everyone who holds an opinion, mindset, value, or outlook on life different to my own is stupid. If they weren't then they'd agree with me.

Also, there's this great thing called "Sarcasm" and "exaggeration." Both are very effective literary techniques, one's which I assume our esteemed friend enacted to better express his distaste with the current governing (if you need a definition on governing, please refer to yesterday's posting war between Silver and I) of the British people, and in fact he does not mean that all Brits are of inferior intellectual ability. Rather, it illustrates the ludicrous behavior that all countries, including the US, are receiving in response to video games.

It also acts as a call to action towards the British populous, in a way that suggests that population of the Isles should take matters into their own hands and re-evaluate their governing officials choices.

Also, it begs reaction from those who read based on the fact that the statement is so ludicrous. Overall, a rather effective statement with a wide variety of pronged purposes.


Rhetorical Theory degree 4tw!

The overreaction to the image found in Law and Order is possibly the most ridiculous thing that's happened so far in this already chaotic week.

Now we're the only media that can't reference real-life cases to increase the suspension of disbelief?

I think the poor boy was making a stab at sarcasm, and forgot to adjust for the internet. Which I'm sure we've all done from time to time, and ended up with our foot cleanly shoved into our mouths. He's a pretty regular poster of sarcastic quips, so I wouldn't be inclined to take him seriously. ^_^

Let's save some of that precious indignant anger for the politicians. Preferably, come election time.

Hmm, when I looked at the policy, it seemed to suggest something ... but as I am American, and not up to par on the jargon contained within customs laws, I've a possibility of being mistaken.

the content must not breach the prohibition on the importation of indecent and obscene material which reflects other UK law (eg Obscene Publications Acts 1959 and 1964, Protection of Children Act 1978)

I'm thinking that this could be a hitch in the process, and is what I was referring to ...

GoodRobotUs:

Is it not because a lot of British gamers agreed with the BBFC's decision, or saw where they were coming from? When Thompson and Vaz were screaming about a new Columbine simulator, the BBFC sat down in front of Bully and decided it was perfectly suitable for people 15 and over. I thought they made an educated assessment of that game and didn't just follow the tabloids. So, it seems reasonable to me that they assessed Manhunt 2 in a similar fashion. Yet, if I accept their decision this time, I am labelled some sort of traitor to the cause of gaming. I would like to see Manhunt 2 myself in order to be able to accurately pass my own judgment, of course, but what if the BBFC are... well... right?

Serrenity:

Fortunately the game hasn't been declared obscene by anyone (officially) yet, so the product itself is at present quite legal. Has anyone tried to get a game rated obscene in this country before? Could Manhunt 2 be the first? It's a pretty sure bet someone will try.

It's not a question of whether the decision was right or wrong, I happen to think the decision was right as well, but that didn't mean it wasn't worth even questioning them. Mr Vaz' statement got out because, in part, of Mr Cookes comment during the banning. I was absolutely appalled at how few British Gamers took exception to those comments, they seemed to think that whatever the BBFC said must be right, and didn't hear what was being said right there in front of them, they let themselves be labelled.

Now that Vaz has seen that Gamers won't react when someone suggests that games ARE mentally 'dangerous', you'll see a step up in his behaviour. I've already written to my own MP asking her to forward on my concerns about Mt Vaz and his attempts at censorship. I suggest other British Gamers do the same thing and start trying to repair the damage we have allowed to take place.

Nary ... I love that word.
Kudos!

Serrenity,

No, I believe that’s not true. What makes you think that it will be illegal to bring it into the UK for one’s personal use? The important bit is “personal use”.

If you can’t convince customs that it’s for personal use (e.g. you try to bring 10 copies of the game into the UK), then it would probably be confiscated.

Here's an idea but the Manhunt 2 DVD in the dvd case of a movie, music CDs, or a licensed game like strawberry shortcake space dream adventure.

@ Zerodash

I'm sorry you've never heard of using emotes to actually state your being sarcastic. Learn2type, numpty-boy :-P

"It’s the Comics Code of Authority for the Digital Age.

Soon the industry will be required to only make games that feature puppies that collect butterflies."

Welcome to Slippery Slope Fallacy, population YOU!

M games still exist folks, remember that...

Pawsie, I'm afraid they're right. People are stupid and growing stupider by the day. As "Social responsibility", bullshit. Society itself is nothing more than a very well fabricated web of lies and bullshit. Expect to see things continue to get worse, both here in the US and there ion the UK.

This just in;
Leader of Parliament deemed "Ugliest Man" by BBC.