Quote:
On Wednesday, Februrary 25 of this year, police in the UK found the body of 14-year old Stefan Pakeerah dead in a park. Thee subsequent investigation has thrown Rockstar's Manhunt into the spotlight. However, some parties wanting to villainize video games have found that it's not as easy as that. But don't be fooled, there are still dangers for the industry and the games you play yet ahead.
The Pakeerah murder case took a sensational turn when the parents of the victim blamed Manhunt, calling for a ban of the game. Stefan's father, Patrick Pakeerah, recalled how Stefan and his 17-year-old friend Warren LeBlanc - who pleaded guilty to beating Stefan with a claw hammer and stabbing him with a knife - used to play the game together. Patrick Pakeerah feels the murder mimicked the title. UK tabloid The Daily Mail ran the sensational headline "Murder by PlayStation" and called for a ban on violent video games. Some retailers in the UK even pulled the title from their shelves.
The ensuing witch-hunt for Manhunt, however, isn't supported by hard facts. The police said that Manhunt is not responsible, and reprimanded papers like The Daily Mail for ignoring this fact. LeBlanc says he only wanted to rob Pakeerah for money to pay back drug debts to another party.
If you think that an unfortunate incident in the UK cannot have any bearing on American gamers, then think again. At least, that's what Florida lawyer Jack Thompson says. In an interview with Game Informer, Thompson declared that he wants to "destroy" both Rockstar and Sony, and characterizes Doug Lowenstein - the president of the video game industry political advocacy group The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) - as worse than Saddam Hussein. Will Thompson's views shape the future of the video game industry?
Thompson thrives on controversy. He's shadowed the industry on events such as Columbine and the Beltway Sniper (Lee Malvo used Halo to practice his skills). Now he is assisting Pakeerah's parents, and believes that the ESRB ratings system and retail compliance of it is flawed. In turn he wants to punish the ESA, Rockstar, and Sony for what he perceives as their complicity. Rockstar issued a statement that read: "We would like to extend our sympathies to the Pakeerah family. We reject any suggestion or association between the tragic events and the sale of Manhunt. There is a clear certification structure in place, and Manhunt should not be in the possession of a juvenile."
Thompson says video game companies are deceitful in how they market titles for adults to children - an issue the Federal Trade Commision has cleared the industry of. "They can lie all they want about who's playing the games and who's buying them. The fact is, a huge amount of money is being made by the industry on mature-rated games that are being sold to and/or played by children, period."
It's regarding this point where Thompsons told us that ESA president Lowenstein was worse than Saddam Hussein by claiming he allows companies to market inappropriate games towards children. When we asked Thompson if that was going too far, not flinching in the face of hyperbole he said, "No, not far enough, actually. He's better educated than Saddam Hussein, so he knows better."
Game Informer asked Lowenstein for a response to this outrageous claim, but he simply told us in a statement, "We believe that name-calling is counterproductive."
Apart from his adacious comparisons of Lowenstein and his promises to go after Rockstar and Sony, Thompson's use of Manhunt is opportunistic scapegoating and skirts the basic question of responsibility. Studies widely vary as to how much parents are involved in the purchase of games by their kids. in the Pakeerah case, it was revealed that a copy of Manhunt was found in the home of the victim, not the perpetrator, which asks: If Pakeerah's mother thinks Rockstar is responsible, is she responsible for allowing her underage son to play the game in her house?
The role of parents and stores highlights the imbalance in people like Thompson and their actions. He would like to use the courts and the law to enforce the issue, but it's already being addressed on its most important levels - at the stores and in the homes. And although Thompson states that movie theaters do a better job than video game retailers in barring underage kids from restricted material, he ignores the fact that video games already rely on exactly the same methods that movie theaters do.
For his part, Thompson suggests legal solutions to ensure enforcement. "Maybe there has to be some liability that's spelled out for parents who let their kids play the game after getting it for them." He even believes federal and local governments may have to get involved. State bills restricting the sale of video games to minors have already failed in Washington and California, and the ban of violent video games that Thompson warns are bogey man claims.
In the meantime, things should stay where they are: concentrating on the retail enforcement of age restrictions and continuing to raise parental awareness. If you disagree with Rockstar, capitalism is the bottom line. Consumers can change what kind of content publishers and developers offer the public better than the courts or government. Betraying the fact that he is out of touch, Thompson eventually exposed his own thoughts on video games. "Any adult who would spend an entire day playing Grand Theft Auto is daft."
The overall issue, apart from responsibility, is the effect games have on kids. Thompson absurdly claims that the ESA buys off scientists to support its claim that there is no direct link that video games cause violence, citing studies at Harvard and elsewhere. However, we doubt that the US Surgeon General, Washington State Department of Health, and the government of Australia (who back the ESA's noncasual belief) are on the ESA's payroll.
Many gamers have questioned whether Manhunt should even let players commit such heinous acts. However, it has correctly preached its message to many gamers simply by making them sick to their stomach. The lesson is that violence is not a casual act, but an abnormal one that players will flinch at performing. If gamers liked GTA because of its casual attitude towards violence, then Manhunt was Rockstar's way of turning the tables on the public. Do you have the stomach to strangle a flailing man with a bag over his head? Is that funny? If anything, Rockstar's lesson is just a little too clever and subtle for our society. Of course, Rockstar makes money on both sides of the question
It's not dangerous to imply that ther's a relationship between video games and behavior. Despite what critics of video games would have you believe, a link between what you play and how you act is not a silver bullet that convincingly confirms that games breed violence. Human beings have higher though processes, and when the vast majority of us understand the difference between right and wrong, it is going to take much more than a game to make us step over such a line into murder.
Discuss.