# Cop Killing Video Game



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Jul 2005)

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Strobel_Mike/2005/07/15/1133828.html

Sat, July 16, 2005
Cop killing - for kids  
By MIKE STROBEL
  
Imagine a video game where you hunt down and kill politicians. 
There'd be hell to pay. Laws would change. 
But cops? Fair game, I guess. 

Brace yourselves for 25 to Life, coming soon to your video store. 
Const. Clint Whitney, 31, York Regional Police, gets wind of it from a Texas cop newsletter. He tracks down a preview on the web, recoils, and calls me. 
"I was dismayed," he says. "It goes against everything I stand for. 
"I don't have kids myself, but there are thousands of kids under my protection as a police officer. 

"I'm willing to put my life on the line for every single one of them. 
"And then some video game comes along and gives them a taste of what it's like to take that life away from me." 
Sit right down, ladies and gents, boys and girls. 

Choose your weapon. Machinegun? Good choice. 
Pretend to kill a cop. What fun. 
Watch his blood gush. Finish him off with a 2-by-4 and a broken bottle. 

Whitney has seen real cops bleed. He used to work in Toronto, 12 Division. He was early on the scene after Const. Tony Macias was wounded during a drug bust in 2001. 
"I've seen what happens when the gangsters shoot." 

Soon, you can, too. 
25 to Life is due in October, my local Blockbuster tells me. 
There is no full demo disc yet. But there's a sample on the web and games insiders have seen others. 

"It's like a death match online," says Orlando Fears, 22, a staffer at Gamerama on Yonge St. 
Up to 16 people can play, eight gangsters, eight cops. 
You can even customize your gang colours, before you go off to shoot, slash, bash, brain, or firebomb coppers. 
Bonus! Use passersby as human shields. 

"Even compared to other violent games, it's a violent game," Fears says. 
"GTA (Grand Theft Auto, the current bloodbath champ) is more random violence. You can kill cops but you don't have to. 
"This time, it's the whole point. 
"I can see how some cops might have a problem with it." 
No kidding. Parents, too. 

U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer is trying to block the game. He says 25 to Life makes GTA look like Romper Room. 
"Little Johnny should be learning how to read, not how to kill cops," he said. 
25 to Life is made by Eidos, of Britain, which surely was gleeful about Schumer's outcry. 
They will love columns like this, too. Nothing sells video games like controversy. 

The tradeoff? At least now you know. Especially you parents. 
Clint Whitney is not pushing a ban. Nor am I, though it's tempting. Censorship is even worse than 25 to Life. 
Kids are another matter. 

The game is sure to get an adult (18-plus) rating. 
But 12-year-olds are sharp. They will get their little mitts on it. 

At the Media Awareness Network, education director Jane Tallim tells me Grand Theft Auto was one of the favourite games of, wait for it, boys in Grades 3 to 6. 
Those same kids will flock to 25 to Life. Will they all then go out and attack real cops? Of course not. 
But that kind of crap sets an unsettling tone. 

"Even in the suburbs, I'm dealing with kids who imitate being a thug -- what they see as strength and character," says Whitney, who stresses he speaks for himself, not the force. 
"I roll up to a scene and they're telling me to f--- off and 'bring it on' and challenging me. They're acting the act." 

Is 25 to Life a hate crime? 
"If the game involved attacking Jewish people, or African Canadians it would be against the law," says Jane Tallim. "So we have to ask if it's okay to target other groups, like the police who are on the front line dealing with aggressive or violent behaviour." 
Meantime, keep your eyes peeled, parents. 

Make sure your video store toes the ratings line with 25 to Life and its ilk. 
Talk to your kids about the games they play. 
Smile at the next cop you see. 
"People can make their own decisions," says Clint Whitney. 

"But we get the society we deserve." 


_ Sorry Mr. Strobel, but I'll take censorship over this anytime,..... shouldn't this fall under the "hate" law leglisation?
I'd like to say more but even I would use expletives......this is brutal._


----------



## DogOfWar (17 Jul 2005)

its a videogame Bruce. Its not meant for children. In Americas army someone is the bad guys. Is it okay for a game in which you shoot american soldiers? It wasnt meant for kids- let the parents do their jobs. ID enforce purchasing- big warning stickers.

As well in the game you choose to be a cop or a criminal. The online part is a classic team game- just ones side is cops and the other is the "robbers".


----------



## 48Highlander (17 Jul 2005)

The article seems to suggest that you can play either as a cop or as a criminal...in which case it's fairly well balanced eh?    Even assuming that's not the case, it doesn't fall under hate crime legislation because the laws don't protect anyone from descrimination based on choice of employment.   It could fall under "inciting violence" except that in that case, ofcourse, EVERY shoot-em-up game would be guilty of the same thing.   Really, what's the difference between a game where you play a criminal killing cops, or a Sith lord killing Jedi?   A criminal stealing cars and killing civilians (GTA)?   A vigilante killing criminals (Punisher)?   And is there any solid data to suggest that any of these games are likely to influence the way children behave outside of the game?


----------



## CADPAT SOLDIER (17 Jul 2005)

Actually in "America's Army" you cannot shoot at American soldiers or your game will end and your player will be stuck in "Leavenworth" until you restart. To you the enemy always looks like terrorist and to your enemy you always look like a terrorist, so you always play the "Good guys".


----------



## DogOfWar (17 Jul 2005)

you are missing the point. You are still playing as a "terrorist" to the other team. What about the new wolf3d? Somebody has to be the nazis.


----------



## Slim (17 Jul 2005)

Its quite common knowledge to many law enforcement agencies tht modern videogames are acting as firearm trainers for kids these days.

(for required proof see Col Dave Grossman's site) http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/articles/video_games/good_clean_fun.cfm

And while I'm against censorship too I also don't think that a game about killing cops is appropriate.

Slim


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Jul 2005)

Quote,
 Really, what's the difference between a game where you play a criminal killing cops, or a Sith lord killing Jedi?   A criminal stealing cars and killing civilians (GTA)?   A vigilante killing criminals (Punisher)?

...since I don't do video, I really can't answer that.
Anyone else?

EDIT: late post, had it all typed out but someone required some "extra" attention  so I just posted it now.


----------



## 48Highlander (17 Jul 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> Its quite common knowledge to many law enforcement agencies tht modern videogames are acting as firearm trainers for kids these days.



There's a difference between stating that games teach kids how to shoot, and saying that games teach kids to kill.  It's obvious that anyone who spends hours shooting a plastic pistol at a video screen will be able to transfer that skill to a real pistol.  Same goes for those who have played laser-tag and paintball, their marksmanship with a rifle will be better than your average civ.  What I was asking is, what evidence do we have that videogames will actually convince a kid to go out and kill someone?  I remember playing the original GTA when I was 15.  We used to compete and see who could kill the most cops before getting killed.  Did that make me go, steal a car, and start running over police officers?  Hardly.  I've been at the nagative side of police attention maybe 5-6 times in my life and have always been polite and respectfull.  At no point did I get an urge to pull out my gat and bust a cap in that honkie.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Jul 2005)

OK, YOU didn't but.......


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (17 Jul 2005)

I'd ban it...If kids want to play first-person shooters, pick another game.  



M.


----------



## DogOfWar (17 Jul 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> Its quite common knowledge to many law enforcement agencies tht modern videogames are acting as firearm trainers for kids these days.
> 
> (for required proof see Col Dave Grossman's site) http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/articles/video_games/good_clean_fun.cfm
> 
> ...



the game isnt about "killing cops". This reminds me of the song "cop killer" by Ice T. The song was horrible but sold a ridiculous amount because people paid it too much attention. This game looks horrible and has already been delayed- its going to sell millions because you guys are making an issue out of it.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (17 Jul 2005)

How about, rather than sitting back and bitching that EB games is selling these types of games to minors freely, these "concerned" parents get off their @sses and start getting involved in what their kids are doing, watching and playing. These companies are there to make money, not look after your children. 

Funny how our childrens well-being is being placed on the shoulders of industries. I'd say that is a larger concern than our children pretending to be criminals in a make-believe world.


----------



## Gouki (17 Jul 2005)

Sh0rtbUs said:
			
		

> How about, rather than sitting back and bitching that EB games is selling these types of games to minors freely, these "concerned" parents get off their @sses and start getting involved in what their kids are doing, watching and playing.



Ah, but that involves people taking personal responsiblity for their problems. And between the choice of that or taking the easy route out and blaming something ... well, we know what the average person is going to choose.


----------



## Baloo (17 Jul 2005)

Reminds me of the hubub parents were creating over Manson (Marilyn...) years ago. 

While not being a parent myself, I would be inclined to believe that high school shootings were not as a direct result of Manson's songs...rather poor parenting and failure to identify problems within their own children. Playing the tried and true blame game. 

My two cents.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Jul 2005)

Hmmmmm, 
are you making the assumption that I'm not" involved in what their kids are doing, watching and playing"?
Me thinks you should reword that.

Secondly,
What are you smoking???   I guess we should just legalize drugs also since the dealers are just trying to make money, and oh, the guy that stole your car?, let him be , he's just trying.....


----------



## paracowboy (17 Jul 2005)

Sh0rtbUs said:
			
		

> How about, rather than sitting back and bitching that EB games is selling these types of games to minors freely, these "concerned" parents get off their @sses and start getting involved in what their kids are doing, watching and playing. These companies are there to make money, not look after your children.
> 
> Funny how our childrens well-being is being placed on the shoulders of industries. I'd say that is a larger concern than our children pretending to be criminals in a make-believe world.


there it is.

I feel this game is despicable, and any parent who purchases it, or allows it in their home should be ashamed of themselves. I feel that the creators are complete and utter assholes. I feel that the people who okayed it for production are also complete and utter assholes. I feel that anybody who plays it is a complete and utter asshole.

But, I am firmly against banning it.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Jul 2005)

paracowboy,
What if it were 8 grown men and 8 young boys and if you grabbed a kid you got to cornhole him, no ban also?


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (17 Jul 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Hmmmmm,
> are you making the assumption that I'm not" involved in what their kids are doing, watching and playing"?
> Me thinks you should reword that.
> 
> ...



My comment wasnt directed at you specifically, otherwise I would have said your name. In fact, i was about as general as one could get. I know nothing about your personal life, nor did i pretend to. If you have chosen to allow your kids (if you have any) to play the game, than that would simply wipe you off the list of people eligible to complain about it.

I smoke nothing but Players, which i may add ISNT illegal. Unlike the activites which you stated, this game does not **** with your head, logical and mobile skills. Not to mention its addictive and harmful, now you may say "then why isnt smoking illegal as well?"It's because we're knee deep in the problem today, but narcotics usage can be prevented from going to that extreme. Playing this game does not result in you having to take the bus to work either...

As was stated, the designers and promoters of the game arent in the clear, but to put all the blame on them is stupid. Ultimately, kids can only play games that their parent have allowed come in through the door.

When i was much younger, i brought home a Korn CD. Rather than complain to the news network about its content regarding rape, killing and narcotics use, My dad introduced it to his size 11. Easily dealt with, and in the end... did more good than placing a ban on Explicit lyrics could ever do.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Jul 2005)

Well then, I'm sure that you didn't hear Korn again untill you were 18 then........


----------



## canadianblue (17 Jul 2005)

The thing is though parents don't have much control over what their kids do at school, and the type of people they hang out with. Parents can't be everywhere at once, and might not be able to control everything their kids do, the best a parent can do in todays world is yes ban that crap from their house, and try to give their kids a good moral compass. I also think that the media does influence youth's views, they don't call us the MTV generation for nothing. Pretty well most kids get alot of their ideas and views from watching MTV or Muchmusic after getting home from school and are exposed to cop killing, rape, drugs, etc. As well with so many parents working and out of the house, they must have trouble keeping this shit away from their kids. 

Luckily for me I had peasentvision out in the country so the worst I could watch was Fullhouse and Fresh Prince of Bel Air


----------



## Infanteer (17 Jul 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> paracowboy,
> What if it were 8 grown men and 8 young boys and if you grabbed a kid you got to cornhole him, no ban also?



Red herring.  The game isn't about child abuse or pedophilia, it's about gratuitous violence (see below).  If a game was marketed with the premise you listed above, I'm curious as to who would release it - I can't see kids having fun molesting people online (violence is another story).  

Anyways, I imagine that crossing from violence to pedophilia would go over the line, and the courts could be brought in with support from most of society - it'd probobly fall under the same catagory as Robin Sharp's "stories" that got him in trouble with the law.



			
				paracowboy said:
			
		

> there it is.
> 
> I feel this game is despicable, and any parent who purchases it, or allows it in their home should be ashamed of themselves. I feel that the creators are complete and utter assholes. I feel that the people who okayed it for production are also complete and utter assholes. I feel that anybody who plays it is a complete and utter asshole.
> 
> But, I am firmly against banning it.



And there it is right there.  One of the lovely things about our society is that people have the right to be assholes, regardless of whether we like it or not.

This game is nothing new - I remember playing with one called Postal a few years back where you had to get points by levelling neighbourhoods full of innocent bystanders.  As Shortbus mentioned, it is up to the parents to keep an eye on what the kid is doing.  Put this in the bin with violent gangster rap (Cop Killer was a good example), explicit porn, and the Anarchist cookbook as part of the trappings of a free and open society. 

If you don't like it, we can always set up the "Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice" - the Taliban could lend us some SME's to help set it up.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (17 Jul 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> - the Taliban could lend us some SME's to help set it up.



That provided a chuckle and a half...  ;D


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Jul 2005)

Quote,
_Red herring.  The game isn't about child abuse or pedophilia, it's about gratuitous violence (see below).  If a game was marketed with the premise you listed above, I'm curious as to who would release it - I can't see kids having fun molesting people online (violence is another story).  
Anyways, I imagine that crossing from violence to pedophilia would go over the line, and the courts could be brought in with support from most of society - it'd probobly fall under the same catagory as Robin Sharp's "stories" that got him in trouble with the law._

So, you are saying you are against censorship except when your hackles are tickled?
Well,"gratuitous violence " tickles my hackles, and I suspect, "most of society" but when I make a stink, I'm told I should just pay more attention to my kids?

Shortbus,
No answer, did you ever hear Korn again untill after you were 18? Pretty hard for your Dad to follow you around everywhere, eh?


----------



## Roy Harding (17 Jul 2005)

I dunno.

As much as I abhore the reported premise of the game, I remember being a kid in the '60s (before computers and video games, and EVEN (in my house) TELEVISION)!!

We'd play "War", with sticks for "guns", and somebody was always the "good guys", and someone else was always "The Krauts", or "The Japs".  The good guys always won.  Or, we'd play "Cops and Robbers", the cops always won.  Or we'd play "Cowboys and Indians", the Cowboys always won.  My Mother never liked these games, she'd tell me it wasn't "a nice way to play", and forbid me to participate - but I did anyway.

I would submit that, graphic as they are, these video games are nothing more than an "update" of the games I played as a boy.  Yes, they're graphic, and Yes they SEEM to glorify violence and death.  But DO they; anymore than the theatrical death throes that we (or at least I) pitched as kids??  I was so good at death throes that I was ALWAYS the Krauts, or the Indians - I had to BEG to get to be one of the "good guys" once in a while.  

Every so often, we'd get bored with the established story line, and let the Robbers win for a change - strangely, we didn't find that outcome as satisfying, and went back to letting the "good guys" win.  It was a lesson in "Right makes Might", and "Justice", and "Moral Superiority" - only as six year old kids we didn't know that, we just knew that letting the "good guys" win FELT better, and made for a more satisfying game.

Should parents be intimately involved in what their kids are doing - absolutely. Should these types of games be BANNED - absolutely not.


Just a thought.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (17 Jul 2005)

Sh0rtbUs said:
			
		

> How about, rather than sitting back and bitching that EB games is selling these types of games to minors freely, these "concerned" parents get off their @sses and start getting involved in what their kids are doing, watching and playing. These companies are there to make money, not look after your children.



Sorry, but that is truly a stupid argument.

Profit motives do not absolve a company from its civic obligations.  

Or maybe they do for you....

Would you like us to deregulate Tobacco companies, Liquor companies, Fireworks Companies, Pharmaceutical Companies who accidentally overprescribe a lot of opiates, etc. as they also have as their primary objective to make money?

I admit parents obviously have a level of responsibility, but in an age where unfortunately both parents work long hours, and then often commute great distances too, "Nanny State" assistance is required to provide protection when parents cannot be there 24/7.



Matthew.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (18 Jul 2005)

The fact that i heard Korn before 18 is far beyond my point. My point is, my father drilled it into my head hard and fast that the band, and their often negative teachings are far from appropriate. i understand and recognize it fully, and although i DO own their albums today, i always find myself skipping certain tracks out of shame. I wonder what planted that in my head...

Parents arent there to bubble their children, they're there to help guide their children in the right direction. A child can take the reigns at any time and steer straight off the path, but will always know where that path lies.

Blackshirt, as for my "stupid argument". Thats you're opinion, and I still dont agree with it. Parents can complain about EB all they want, but I dont remeber EB ever signing anything stating their obligation to uphold each and every households moral fiber and appeal to thier choice in entertainment. If that were the case, they wouldnt have lasted a day.


----------



## Infanteer (18 Jul 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> So, you are saying you are against censorship except when your hackles are tickled?
> Well,"gratuitous violence " tickles my hackles, and I suspect, "most of society" but when I make a stink, I'm told I should just pay more attention to my kids?



Now you are putting words into my mouth - did I at any point make the pronouncement of my view of either gratuitous violence or pedophilia?   I stated that it would most likely cross the bounds of decency for most folks (hence my reference of of the courts and most within society) - whether it is worth censoring is a different point altogether.   I imagine this was at the the crux of Robin Sharp's case within the Supreme Court of Canada (is it illegal to write about criminal acts?) so the issue is liable to be contentious.  As well, by bringing in pedophilia, you are appealing to emotion (logical fallacy) and obfusicating the facts by drawing links to something that has nothing to do with a tasteless video game made by assholes.

It is not a matter of what bothers whom, that is not what censorship should be about.   It is a matter of whether the material being censored being dangerous to the well-being of society.   If censorship is about being bothered, than we have a problem (as evidenced by a few rewrites of your statement here):



> _So, you are saying you are against censorship except when your hackles are tickled?
> Well, *"explicit pornography"* tickles my hackles, and I suspect, "most of society" but when I make a stink, I'm told I should just pay more attention to my kids?_





> _So, you are saying you are against censorship except when your hackles are tickled?
> Well, *"Islam"* tickles my hackles, and I suspect, "most of society" but when I make a stink, I'm told I should just pay more attention to my kids?_





> _So, you are saying you are against censorship except when your hackles are tickled?
> Well, *"Foul Language"* tickles my hackles, and I suspect, "most of society" but when I make a stink, I'm told I should just pay more attention to my kids?_



As you can see, censorship is very dangerous as it can have the tendency to be a slippery slope (history usually bears this out).

If we are to censor something for being dangerous to the well-being of society, than we should make sure that it is actually a danger.   As a few people pointed out on this thread, violent media is nothing new (music, TV, and games just as bad as this one in the story have been around for a while).   Are these any different than crime novellas in the 1940's and 50's that highlighted the exploits of gangsters and outlaws who often blew away "G-men" or "Law-dog" in their criminal escapades?

Slim did point to Grossman's work, which is debatable - as far as I'm concerned, we've always been attracted to violence within our cultural media; just look at how bloody the Iliad is, and that's been going strong for almost 3,000 years.   If this new video game means that we have to keep a closer knuckle on the Playstation, than so be it (the little guy on my end already loves his Gamecube, but at least he's satisfied with Mariokart for now.... ^-^).

Pedophilia, well now, that's a different subject altogether.   I'm willing to bet that material containing child porn presents a real threat to society, as those who are consuming it aren't males (young and old) with a testosterone kick but perverts with real pathological mental problems.


----------



## Nemo888 (18 Jul 2005)

There are stores full of liquor and beer but if your teenager is always drunk who's fault is it?

This game sounds sick to me. But in other games like Counter Strike I like to play online as the bad guys\terrorists occasionally. Its fun to play the bad guy sometimes.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Jul 2005)

Quote,
Th_ere are stores full of liquor and beer but if your teenager is always drunk who's fault is it?_

...now thats rich, I don't know, please enlighten me.


----------



## Warvstar (18 Jul 2005)

Sh0rtbUs said:
			
		

> How about, rather than sitting back and bitching that EB games is selling these types of games to minors freely, these "concerned" parents get off their @sses and start getting involved in what their kids are doing, watching and playing. These companies are there to make money, not look after your children.
> 
> Funny how our childrens well-being is being placed on the shoulders of industries. I'd say that is a larger concern than our children pretending to be criminals in a make-believe world.



EXACTLY. This is the Awnser.


----------



## DogOfWar (18 Jul 2005)

actually the penalty is higher for the liqour store. Im not against actual legislation against selling these games to kids. Thats fine- they arent marketed to kids, the average age of a vidoegame player is about 27.

However games that a JUST based on violence have a tendancy   to do horribly. Postal and Postal 2, were panned by critics and met poor sales as did NARC, and State of emergency.Grand theft auto does well because it has a good story and strong playbility. In the eighties there was a game where you could ejaculate on peoples heads from the roof of a building and rape a native lady as General Custer- there was no outcry then and these games were fairly largely released- but again these games were just horrible and no one really bought them. No you ouldnt just grab people and "cornhole" them but I cant see how they could make that even resemble fun.....

People in law Enforcement have enough to worry about that they dont need to do battle over these sorts of issues. It makes us seem whiney and overbearing.


----------



## Warvstar (18 Jul 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quote,
> Th_ere are stores full of liquor and beer but if your teenager is always drunk who's fault is it?_
> 
> ...now thats rich, I don't know, please enlighten me.



The kids fault and the parents. Thats my Oppinion.


----------



## Infanteer (18 Jul 2005)

BeadWindow said:
			
		

> In the eighties there was a game where you could ejaculate on peoples heads from the roof of a building and rape a native lady as General Custer- there was no outcry then and these games were fairly largely released- but again these games were just horrible and no one really bought them. No you ouldnt just grab people and "cornhole" them but I cant see how they could make that even resemble fun.....



IIRC, this was the same problem with people who crusaded against "Dungeons and Dragons".   Being a game based upon an imagination, people didn't like the fact bands of dice-rollers could play out deplorable acts within their game....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Jul 2005)

Quote,
_EXACTLY. This is the Awnser._
The answer?.....that whole paragraph is   bullshit kife.

What does getting involved mean to you? Tie them to a friggin chair until they're 18?
Shortbus has already established that even kickin' the stuff out of the house will not keep "evil" away from your children, so sometimes deeper steps are necessary.
Want to call it censorship?...fine I can live with that, everyone on this site partakes in it, its called OPSEC.
OK, I'm getting out of this thread until some of you kids have kids of your own, until then you can't understand the fears that come with being a parent.

Quote,
_The kids fault and the parents if the kid is under 18. Thats my Oppinion._

You need to see the real world lad, just how do you propose in this day and age to keep your kids from drinking?      ...and before you answer with" a couple of belts to the head" that only results in you getting charged and your child in foster care, take a night and think about what you would REALLY do and I can guarantee that most of your ideas are illegal.......


----------



## Britney Spears (18 Jul 2005)

> In the eighties there was a game where you could ejaculate on peoples heads from the roof of a building and rape a native lady as General Custer- there was no outcry then and these games were fairly largely released- but again these games were just horrible and no one really bought them.



I've heard of <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custer's_Revenge>Custer's Revenge</a>, and as you can see from the link there was quite a public outcry about it when it first came out. I imagine that THAT game would never have been released today, since the SOLE PREMESIS of the game involves manuvering a naked white guy in order to rape an obviously Indian woman tied to a pole, without any other redeemable gameplay features. The makers would have been lynched.

I am unfamiliar with the first aspect, the "ejaculating on to people's heads" part. Is this in the same game?


----------



## Warvstar (18 Jul 2005)

> Quote,
> _The kids fault and the parents if the kid is under 18. Thats my Oppinion._
> 
> You need to see the real world lad, just how do you propose in this day and age to keep your kids from drinking?    ...and before you answer with" a couple of belts to the head" that only results in you getting charged and your child in foster care, take a night and think about what you would REALLY do and I can guarantee that most of your ideas are illegal.......



My parents acually tought me to not drink or smoke. Im 19 and dont do either. Ive acually tried smoking and drinking. But none of its a habbit, and I respect my parents enough to never make it a habit.
Acually Legal or not if I had kids I would disipline them with force and with love. I have many good friends who obey and respect thier parents laws and the laws of the country. Because of the .... BELT and Love that there parents showed them.


----------



## DogOfWar (18 Jul 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> I've heard of <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custer's_Revenge>Custer's Revenge</a>, and as you can see from the link there was quite a public outcry about it when it first came out. I imagine that THAT game would never have been released today, since the SOLE PREMESIS of the game involves manuvering a naked white guy in order to rape an obviously Indian woman tied to a pole, without any other redeemable gameplay features. The makers would have been lynched.
> 
> I am unfamiliar with the first aspect, the "ejaculating on to people's heads" part. Is this in the same game?



I was talking about Beat 'em & Eat 'em on Atari. 

http://www.seanbaby.com/nes/naughty.htm check out this link of the top 10 naughtiest games- its just a write up folks. However there is some foul language so dont let your kids read.


----------



## Britney Spears (18 Jul 2005)

Hmm thanks for the link, I had picked up on a few links about this matter too. 

I easily lost a hour of productivity reading the writeup on <a href=http://www.i-mockery.com/minimocks/sexual-games/10.php>Cho Aniki</a>. I wonder if the Japanese have somewhat different perspectives on this issue.


----------



## Infanteer (18 Jul 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> What does getting involved mean to you? Tie them to a friggin chair until they're 18?



I agree, pinning the actions of a 17 or 18 year old on their parents is BS (although some causality may be found there, but that is a case-by-case matter).



> Shortbus has already established that even kickin' the stuff out of the house will not keep "evil" away from your children, so sometimes deeper steps are necessary.
> Want to call it censorship?...fine I can live with that, everyone on this site partakes in it, its called OPSEC.



You are free to censor all this material that you want from your home - the lovely thing about a free and open society is that it works both ways; the public can consume what it wants and you, within your private sphere, can ban it if you want.

I personally don't want to be involved in legislating morality nor do I wish it done to myself, lest - down the road - a large chunk of people start thinking that deeper steps are neccesary to make me go to Church every sunday or to support a certain political party/movement.

As for OPSEC, we do it to protect the guys on the spear point - it isn't a ban on doing anything, it's just keeping things on a need to know basis.   Again, as I said in my earlier post (which never got a response) it has nothing to do with what "gets your hackles up" or makes you feel icky.



> OK, I'm getting out of this thread until some of you kids have kids of your own, until then you can't understand the fears that come with being a parent.



Okay, well me and D9 aren't losing any sleep about this for her kid, so can I play?


----------



## Sub_Guy (18 Jul 2005)

It is a video game..................just a game............thats it....

How is it any different that watching a violent movie?  Every time a new GTA game comes out there are people kicking and screaming, about how it should be banned.  The game carries a "m" rating, M for MATURE not for kiddies.  Do you go out and rent porn for your kids?  Then why would anyone buy this game for their kids?  Seriously if anyone here has played GTA (I know this isn't about GTA, but a similar game) and all you do is run around killiing people and cops, you will get bored of it pretty quickly.

Having a bunch of people 3 generations behind me, deciding what my kids can't and can do is frustrating.  

What we need here is better control of how video games are bought and sold, and stiff penalties for those who ignore the law.


BTW it has never been proven that Violence on TV/GAMES/MOVIES causes kids to be violent.


----------



## Island Ryhno (18 Jul 2005)

You guys know that little room in the back of your video store, where the "strange" people go to rent "stuff"? Put the freaking game in there, I believe that may help alleviate some of the problem. However, if the game is released and people have access to a computer it can be had, there is no stopping it today. A very strict policy would have to be in place where the games are sold or rented, it would have to be "policed" for sure. As of right now I'm not against banning it, I'm not sure how I would feel if I had kids and they came home with it, may change my perception. I feel for parents today. Acck, I actually want kids, I should just get a dog, he can't rent anything.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Jul 2005)

This got totally away from the reason I posted it, I just have a problem with the selection of police officers as a targeted group.
I'm sure not one of you would feel the same if you got to be one of 8 Nazi's and then got to select 8 Jewish people to be hunted.

And I  sincerely apologise in advance for this, but closer to home, you get to be one of 8 National Guard pilots and then get to select 8 PPCLI members......

[ I hated to use that but where does one stop?,... to me THAT is the slippery slope that Infanteer alluded to earlier]


----------



## 48Highlander (18 Jul 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> You need to see the real world lad, just how do you propose in this day and age to keep your kids from drinking?      ...and before you answer with" a couple of belts to the head" that only results in you getting charged and your child in foster care, take a night and think about what you would REALLY do and I can guarantee that most of your ideas are illegal.......



"A couple belts upside the head" used to be the forumla for training new recruits too.   While it may have been faster, and easier to implement, there are certainly other methods which work.   With children I've found that most of the time all you need to do is be firm, fair, and consistent.   If you approach them that way from a young age, they'll learn quickly what is acceptable and what isn't, and will learn to respect and listen to you.   Obviously all children go through a stage where they rebel against their parents, however, there's a reason why some kids idea of rebelion is staying out half an hour past curfew, while for others it's consuming vast ammounts of alcohol and drugs while having unprotected sex with complete strangers.



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> This got totally away from the reason I posted it, I just have a problem with the selection of police officers as a targeted group.
> I'm sure not one of you would feel the same if you got to be one of 8 Nazi's and then got to select 8 Jewish people to be hunted.
> 
> And I   sincerely apologise in advance for this, but closer to home, you get to be one of 8 National Guard pilots and then get to select 8 PPCLI members......
> ...



Well actually....



> The video game â Å“Under Ashâ ?, currently offered as a free download on an Arab website located in Torrance, California, involves the mass killing of Israelis and Jews.



Ok, so you don't get to be a Nazi, but you get to be a palestinian killing Jews.   Close enough for you?   Sure there was outrage when it was first released, but

a)   Digital media is next to impossible to control
b)   In the end, as has been pointed out, people are free to be assholes

The game hasn't achieved great popularity even though it hasn't been banned.   And even if it does, so what?   There's still no evidence that actions in a game in any way translate to "the real world".

If someone wanted to create a game where you go about blowing up PPCLI guys, do you suppose those who played it would automaticaly go and search out members of the CF to blow up?


----------



## Infanteer (18 Jul 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> This got totally away from the reason I posted it, I just have a problem with the selection of police officers as a targeted group.
> I'm sure not one of you would feel the same if you got to be one of 8 Nazi's and then got to select 8 Jewish people to be hunted.
> 
> And I   sincerely apologise in advance for this, but closer to home, you get to be one of 8 National Guard pilots and then get to select 8 PPCLI members......
> ...



Appealing to emotion again - still doesn't justify censorship.   I have tons of wargames - crushing 4 CMBG (as the Soviets) or the Warsaw Uprising (as the Germans) are a few scenarios on them; should I throw them away for the sake of my mortal soul?


----------



## Sheerin (19 Jul 2005)

I canunderstand why members of the law enforcement community would be upset at this game, just like people are upset at GTA and other violent games.  

Though, i wonder why people haven't mention counter-strike.  In that game you can be a terrorist and your goal is to kill the counter-terrorists as well as destroy certain monuments or take hostages or whatever.


----------



## Infanteer (19 Jul 2005)

And that is one of the most popular games ever....


----------



## RCA (20 Jul 2005)

> Really, what's the difference between a game where you play a criminal killing cops, or a Sith lord killing Jedi?


   

      I think what people are failing to understand is that by using police as targets (whether they shot back or nor is irrelevant), they are further being diminished in society's eyes. They have a particular job within a civilized society and are different because they are there to serve and protect, and maintain law and order. They need the public's respect to do the job, and any effort to discredit or diminish them is counter- productive. We are moving towards a society if individualism where authority is to be questioned. You see it in the schools where teachers powers have been reduced, because â Å“my Johnny can do no wrong therefore it is the teachers fault.â ? We are now doing the same to cops by the introduction of this â Å“game.â ? 



> People in law Enforcement have enough to worry about that they don't need to do battle over these sorts of issues. It makes us seem whiney and overbearing.


   - makes that point. I'm sure they appreciate their diminshment in the pulic's eyes. Just ask the families of  Dennis Strongquiil or the Alberta four. 

 Didn't anyone get a chill when a previous poster said the GTA was different because the police where not targets per se - 


> I remember playing the original GTA when I was 15.   We used to compete and see who could kill the most cops before getting killed.


 Sure its agame, but think of the implications.

   Interesting that car theft is on the rise and some places, rampant (think Winnipeg), and there is a game out there glorifying it. One doesn't beget the other, but as a society, sometimes we need to get our heads out of our collective asses. We may have played â Å“cope and robbersâ ? when we were younger, but we knew to respect the police. If a cop brought you home, the cop wasn't at fault, and you paid the consequences. We a losing that (or lost) and games as this one just perpetuate and continue this trend. 

I am not for censorship, but obviously someone thinks there is a market for this. So, if nobody buys it, down it goes. Unfortunately, this is wishful thinking. Who wouldn't be thrilled to by being able to drill a cop? That is the scary part. 



> Thats fine- they arent marketed to kids, - Bullshit.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Jul 2005)

RCA said:
			
		

> Who wouldn't be thrilled to by being able to drill a cop? That is the scary part.



Then isn't this game a symptom and not the actual ailment?


----------



## Sheerin (20 Jul 2005)

> Interesting that car theft is on the rise and some places, rampant (think Winnipeg), and there is a game out there glorifying it.



I think the rise in car theft has to do with an increased market for stolen cars both in North America and abroad.  People don't do things because a game told them to, well that goes sane people.  People are generally motivated by one thing and one thing only.  Money.  If they can't make enough money in the legitimate economy then they'll switch to the underground one.  
I don't know how much a person makes per stolen car but I suspect its a lot more than they could ever make working at a McDonald's or as a bus boy or security guard.  The problem isn't the games, its the fact that not everyone has the same opportunity to advance in the legal work market.


----------



## Gramps (20 Jul 2005)

The solution is quite simple. If you dont want your kids to play the game or if you are offended by it then DONT BUY IT! Violent games, T.V shows or movies do not make people go out and kill, mame or hurt others by the way neither does Heavy Metal or Marylin Manson either. It is far to easy to place the blame on the entertainment world and not the individual.


----------



## dutchie (20 Jul 2005)

I have read the whole thread, and I still can't see the big deal. What's the difference between a game that has cops as the targets and one that has civvies? or soldiers? Are you (Bruce et al) saying that it's ok to have games where the object is to run down little old ladies or kill soldiers, but not one where you kill cops? What's the dif? Are cops' lives more sacred than old ladies lives (or anyone else's)? If the object was to kill the Gestapo (cops, but bad ones), would that be ok?

If the fear is that kids will play this game and develop hate for cops, and then kill them, then there's a bigger problem. If the parent's influence on their kids is so weak that it can't counteract a shitty video game, it's not the game's fault, it's the kid's and the parents' fault. How much effort does it take to stop kids from gunning down cops?


----------



## RCA (20 Jul 2005)

As Infanteer has rightly pointed out, these games are symptomatic of our direction as a whole. What bothers me is that a lot out there see absolute no problem with any of this, that there is not even the tiniest trepidation, that in virtual reality, cops are being targeted because of the job they do. 

    As for car stealing, from where I come from, the vast majority is either joy riding or to lazy to walk. And most are committed by youths. Having a game out there my not cause them to steal, but does have a way of validate what they are doing in there own minds.

   Why as a society, would we put out a product that descentizes (or dehumanize) those sworn to serve and protect us. What came first, the chicken or the egg? Was the market demanding the game, or was a market created for the game?

    And there are no such thing simple solutions. By saying let the parents look after it ignores the fact that a lot of parents (broad brush) are more interested in being their kids friends then a disciplinarian. And as we were all kids once, where there is a will, there is a way.



> ok to have games where the object is to run down little old ladies or kill soldiers, but not one where you kill cops? What's the dif? Are cops' lives more sacred than old ladies lives (or anyone else's)?



 Thats one of my points, yes cops are different beacuse of the nature of their job. Soldiers,by the nature of their profession, put themselves into harms way, but the police are there to stop socieity from turning into chaos and deserve respect for doing that.


----------



## mover1 (20 Jul 2005)

I will treat this game like I do Celine Dion or Oprah. I just wont waste my time or money on them.


----------



## dutchie (20 Jul 2005)

BTW, I'd like to point out that I also think the game developers are assholes, and any parent who allows their kid to play this game are also assholes.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Jul 2005)

I wonder what the official reaction would be if someone created a "skins" modification which provided reasonable facsimiles of prominent politicians and celebrities.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Jul 2005)

Well, I'll sum up my POV by saying that I'm not too worried about this as I generally view society as being idiotic and this is one of the things we get in the West for allowing them to be idiots.  This is nothing new (as many have pointed out) and it won't be the last of its kind - society is not going to fall because of a tasteless form of entertainment.


----------



## Warvstar (20 Jul 2005)

RCA said:
			
		

> And there are no such thing simple solutions. By saying let the parents look after it ignores the fact that a lot of parents (broad brush) are more interested in being their kids friends then a disciplinarian. And as we were all kids once, where there is a will, there is a way.



Just to clear what some people may have been thinking. I did not mean that its only the parents responisbilty, I agree that it and many other games are fairly sick and should not be allowed. But we as people pay these guys to make these games, if they made no profit they wouldent keep making the same games. By the way I think Battlefield 2 is an awesome game, but that is not that same as going cop killing. When you play the bad guy in an army game its You vs Them, You both have a reason to fight. The thug is the bad guy no matter what and the cop is the good guy no matter what. Both sides know this. I think thats why people dont like the cop thing as much. Would I play the game? I might, but thats not really the point. They shouldent need to make a game this way.

Qoute infanteer "society is not going to fall because of a tasteless form of entertainment" end qoute. No but it will be one of the things pulling it down.


----------



## Baloo (20 Jul 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I wonder what the official reaction would be if someone created a "skins" modification which provided reasonable facsimiles of prominent politicians and celebrities.



Like the JFK assassination game?

Already done.


----------



## DogOfWar (21 Jul 2005)

Warvstar said:
			
		

> By the way I think Battlefield 2 is an awesome game, but that is not that same as going cop killing. When you play the bad guy in an army game its You vs Them, You both have a reason to fight. The thug is the bad guy no matter what and the cop is the good guy no matter what. Both sides know this.



Unless the thug sees himself as fighting "the man" or feed his family and the cops are crooked. Your argument there doesnt hold water. Nazis are most assuredly are BAD guys and people play as them in online games all the time. Making it so you cant kll a police officer in a videogame says to the public you value acops life more than everyone else- this creates bad mojo with the public. Last thing any LEO needs.

There was that other game that was supposed to be the Counter Strike killer about 3 years ago where you could play as the RCMP ERT team and JTf2 against a team of terrorists- no one said anything then. And that was killing cops- is it okay to kill cops if you are a political terrorist? Or is it okay to kill tactical police officers? This game featured SWAT and SF units from around the world VS terrorists but its name eludes me.


----------



## Dare (21 Jul 2005)

I finished GTA 3 San Andreas about 2 weeks ago. It's a fairly entertaining game. It's actually *less* violent than most games out there. So if your arguing censorship on Violent Content, it's not valid. What it does have it a whole lot of criminality. Although, if criminality is your worry, there are other games which are far more of a concern. I think the only aspect of the game which deserves harsh criticism is the political message it sends (sympathy towards the criminals, in similar 90's rapper Whatever-it-takes-to-Get-out-of-the-Ghetto talk) but then, what can you expect from the current sympathizing Scotland political environment. Although even that is somewhat accurate to the mentality of many people in that situation (which is the time in which the game is based). It's far from being any sort of training ground of any type. It doesn't teach you how to steal a car, smuggle drugs, fly planes, aim shotguns, reload m16s, evade law enforcement, kill law enforcement, etc (one mission you SWIM past a PT boat onto an aircraft carrier, shoot 3-4 soldiers (the total on the carrier) disable "the SAM" (using the magic disable SAM button), hop in a Harrier, take off in a matter of seconds, then engage and destroy 2 other harriers, then engage and destroy 3 PT boats). There are no tactics or details. It's just entertainment, not a simulation. What it is more of, is a platform for a dumb hippy political message. It's up to the parents to properly contextualize the game. GTA has always been successful due to its gameplay, not just because you're a criminal in the game. If you think you're going to somehow manage to dry up their profits, it's just not going to happen. It's selling well for a reason. 
To the critics: Where were you during the release of any number of other worse games? How about State of Emergency, where you run around smashing stores and killing random people. That's the entire game, right there. Where were you when that was released? Most of you are judging a book by it's cover(as it's obvious the most critical of comments are from those who have not played it). If you want to alienate a lot of people from your message of morality, then by all means, carry on. You're only doing harm to your cause. It's just a game, the kids can tell the difference. Can you? 

As for this idea that Battlefield 2 has a clearly defined idea of what the Good guy is, I think that's probably all in your head. There's no context to suggest that the game portrays any side as in the Right or in the Wrong. At least GTA3 has a limited morality agenda (ie. the prime enemy is a renegade, dope smoking, corrupt cop (don't think they don't exist)). The lead character has restraint and humanity (of course, all the while still a criminal).Yet there is no such message in BF2. You can hop right in the game and start shooting at US Marines. You assume that people have the same concept of who is Right and who is Wrong, that we do, in that case. To many who play the game, and join in on the Middle Eastern Coalition side, they *are* playing on the Good side. As for that game BeadWindow is talking about, GlobalOps (made in Canada, btw), it was meant to be a more realistic version of CounterStrike and the inclusion of JTF2 was not so terrorists could target them, but because they *live in Canada* and everyone else has their top dogs in a video game. Now, what these three games have in common, is that neither has any contextualized morality to either side. The game is neutral. You can not condemn one for its morality and then claim the other is alright. Multiplayer games tend to be like that. There's no story, it's just fighting. If you think that there aren't Real Nazis playing on the Nazi side, now and then, you're deluding yourself. So if you are angry at GTA3s context, you have to get angry at all these other games context and LACK of context. Might as well ban em all, eh!

The rating for the game I do think should be higher, but that's it. It's definitely an Adult game. No question. Fairly anti-climatic ending, as well.  Maybe you should give it a try, unless, of course, you think you'll get brainwashed into killing cops and stealing cars..  :


----------



## rcr (21 Jul 2005)

BeadWindow said:
			
		

> There was that other game that was supposed to be the Counter Strike killer about 3 years ago where you could play as the RCMP ERT team and JTf2 against a team of terrorists- no one said anything then. And that was killing cops- is it okay to kill cops if you are a political terrorist? Or is it okay to kill tactical police officers? This game featured SWAT and SF units from around the world VS terrorists but its name eludes me.



It was titled "Global Operations" and it was pretty bad.


----------



## Dare (21 Jul 2005)

archer said:
			
		

> It was titled "Global Operations" and it was pretty bad.


Sure was.  Back to Operation Flashpoint.


----------



## canadianblue (22 Jul 2005)

I think that a bigger problem may not be just the games, but the entire media as a whole. Any movie I have watched were police officers were in the major plot, it seemed that the bad guy in the end was always the police officer. I can only think of maybe at best three or four movies in the past five years were police officers ever played "good guys". As well I did enjoy playing GTA3 Vice City, however I myself am smart enough to know that I was playing a bad guy, and I don't support criminal activity one bit. The major concern however is that more often younger kids are playing these games, I've heard of kids in Grade 3 playing Grand Theft Auto. At that age I think a child is very impressionable, and the last thing any of us want is for kids to get their values from this game. As well parenting is harder then it was before, even if you ban a game from your house, your kid could just as easily play it at a neighbour's house or a friends house. I think that they should make violent video games illegal to buy for children under the age of 16, as well if parents come into a video game store and ask for a computer game and say its for their 12 year old kid then they shouldn't be allowed to buy it.

Video games should be set at the same standards as movies. I think that a good idea would be to get parents to be to get a license for taking care of kids. Why not, if they expect to have kids the least they should do is learn how to make kids into good citizens.


----------



## Baloo (22 Jul 2005)

Futuretrooper said:
			
		

> Video games should be set at the same standards as movies. I think that a good idea would be to get parents to be to get a license for taking care of kids. Why not, if they expect to have kids the least they should do is learn how to make kids into good citizens.



Will they have to get it renewed? Can we slap a plate on the child's forhead? Will it have to be visible from the rear? What sort of demerit points are they looking at for a CDUI (Changing Diapers Under the Influence)?


----------



## GerryCan (22 Jul 2005)

Hey I have an idea! Let's institute a crazy new radical idea called parenting! Along with it comes a crazy new word called Accountability!
Sound crazy? It just might be...

If you don't want kids to play violent video games, don't let them. If your kid goes out one day and whacks a cop, then blames it on a video game...the game is the least of your worries, your kid is insane.
Don't forget folks, the video game generation grew up. Now the kids that used to play the Atari and Nintendo games longing for games with absolute anarchy and violence are now making those games. Bottom line is they're still games at the end of the day. Just like movies are still movies. It's up to parents and parents alone to monitor what their kids watch and play.
Don't like it? Don't buy it.
I grew up watching horror/slasher movies at a very young age, it was pretty a pretty controversial thing to do at the time, but i haven't killed anyone yet, don't have any plans for it either. It's the same shit, just a new and slightly different pile.


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (22 Jul 2005)

Somehow society has dealt with touchy subjects in the past. The porn industry is a wee bit bigger these days than in say the fifties. Magicly a compromise was made and now videos are in their own "backrooms" and magazines have coloured plastic pouches. In the end though it boiled down to parenting preventing children from trying to get at it. Sure its still easy for kids to get at it and everyone knows when you say something is forbidden to your kids, it becomes that much more alluring.

 But as for video games, virtually every game out there offends someone and interests another. To say video games create killers, is a joke. Look back to the advent of television.It was said to be the root cause of the familly break ups in the 50's and 60's. Its just easier to blame something else than to admit, "I didn't spend enough time talking to my kids"

My nickel and a bit


----------



## GerryCan (22 Jul 2005)

As well as porn being tucked away in corners away from the paws of kids, video games now all have their own ESRB rating posted on the packaging of the game ie; 18+, E or what have you. Kids can't just go into Walmart and pick up a copy of GTA if they're only 10 years old, only with their consenting parental guardian with them.


----------



## mover1 (25 Jul 2005)

Exactly.

   There is a rating system out there an the only people who seem to go by them is the people in the movie theaters themselves. Having some experience in a retail music shop, my experience led me to believe that parents don't really care. To them its just a record or game. Cartoons are for kids and they would get some upset when they bought Dragonball Z and it wasn't the clean version they see on TV but the original adult content version with the swearing and the contexts intended for a more mature audience. 
It was my fault for trying to dissuade them from buying it. It was my fault for selling it to them. It was my fault for the content of the product. 

Hey I warned ya and pointed the advisory warning out to you. But can I interest you in Nelly's new release or how about some ODB. There is good family sing songs.


----------

