$246 million lawsuit against makers of GTA3!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Osweld

Notice how I said "the biggest determining factor" instead of "the only factor"?

But regardles, since the children aren't considered responsible by law, that means their parents have to be. Otherwise, who the hell's responsible? (oh right, the video game. )

That doesnt thereby follow. If a minor commits a criminal act, they are not (usually) treated as adults, but the parents are not necessarily held responsible, absent evidence of specific fault.

BTW, if you sell alcohol to a minor, YOU'RE subject to criminal prosecution, NOT the minors parents.


Did the parents fail as parents? what were the kids like before they played Vice City? etc - are questions we cant answer from the article quoted.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Osweld
Aparently their parents aren't considered personally responsible, either.

Of course, they are not in the dough.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


That doesnt thereby follow. If a minor commits a criminal act, they are not (usually) treated as adults, but the parents are not necessarily held responsible, absent evidence of specific fault.

Well, that's bull. Someone gets shot and no one's responsible?

BTW, if you sell alcohol to a minor, YOU'RE subject to criminal prosecution, NOT the minors parents.

How is that relevant?

I'm assuming you're using that as a comparison to GTA. But it was either the parents who bought the game for the kid, or the store that sold it to them. Certainly not the game producers (it is, as you said, rated mature after all). But that doesn't really matter, anyways, because a video game can't turn saints into serial killers.

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
BTW, if you sell alcohol to a minor, YOU'RE subject to criminal prosecution, NOT the minors parents.

It isn't illegal to sell these games to minors. Maybe it should be but until then....

If the game has an advisory age rating and the parents ignored it and allowed the kids to have the game before they reached the advised age then they did not exert the control they could have done and have some responsibility. Assuming the courts find against the game in the first place.

As it is the companies being sued haven't broken any law, except the crime of having more money than somebody else.

Afterthought: Haven't we been here many times before. I can remember a rock group, Judas Priest?, being sued over a claim their music inspired a couple of kids to go out and shoot themselves about 20 years ago. The parents lost but it seems the lawyers never give up.

[:) Smiley]

It's time they crezte a third age category between adult and minor. There's a simply no way one blanket category can cover both 2-year olds and 16 year olds accurately.

[Oerdin]

This reminds me of the cretins who watch the TV show Jack-Ass and then try to remake the stunts. There's a big warning at the beginning of each show and the parents have no one to blame but their kids for being stupid and themselves for not providing proper parental supervision.

Didn't some trailer park trash sue MTV back in the 90's when their kids tried to remake a chain saw scene from Beavis & Butthead? If I remember correctly their case got tossed out of court.

[DinoDoc]

Isn't there some sort of sanction the judge can put on these people for clogging the court system with this baseless pile of crap?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by CerberusIV


It isn't illegal to sell these games to minors. Maybe it should be but until then....

If the game has an advisory age rating and the parents ignored it and allowed the kids to have the game before they reached the advised age then they did not exert the control they could have done and have some responsibility. Assuming the courts find against the game in the first place.

.

Now these are good points. Before we hold the game makers or retailers responsible, we need to ask how the parents allowed their kids to play a game with a mature rating.

Theres also some issues with how the rating system is enforced. Unlike the film industry (another voluntary rating system) retailers generally dont check ages when they sell mature rated games. Now since its all voluntary they dont have to. Some congressmen a few years back wanted to change that, but i believe it was stopped. In part due to industry lobbying.

BTW, just cause its legal, doesnt mean theyre free from liability. I realize its different from selling alcohol though - i mentioned that only to show that their can be liability for a minors actions other than the minor and the parent.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Smiley
It's time they crezte a third age category between adult and minor. There's a simply no way one blanket category can cover both 2-year olds and 16 year olds accurately.

well at least here in the states we effectively do that. You need to be 21 to buy alcohol, but only 18 to buy tobacco (id reverse that myself) You need to be 18 to vote or enter a contract. Age of consent for marriage varies by state from 16 to 18. Age to drop out of school is usually 16. Age to drive varies from 14 to 17 etc.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Osweld


Well, that's bull. Someone gets shot and no one's responsible?



How is that relevant?

I'm assuming you're using that as a comparison to GTA. But it was either the parents who bought the game for the kid, or the store that sold it to them. Certainly not the game producers (it is, as you said, rated mature after all). But that doesn't really matter, anyways, because a video game can't turn saints into serial killers.

Its quite possinle that the age rating shields the producer and exposes the retailer - or as discussed below, that the parents are at fault for buying the game.

Re: saints.
Most human beings are not saints. I'm not. My kid is not. The question is whether they can turn ordinary, or even slightly worse than ordinary, impulsive teen age boys into serial killers. I will agree that the evidence tends that they dont - they increase aggression levels, but only marginally. Which would make them similar to violent films in that regard.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The question is whether they can turn ordinary, or even slightly worse than ordinary, impulsive teen age boys into serial killers.

They can't. If a kid is that susceptable to influence, video games are going to be the last of his worries.

they increase aggression levels, but only marginally.

Video games don't do that, either. It's possible that someone will come away from a game feeling more aggresive, but that's their reaction to it - not some sort of subminal messaging from the game. Alot of people get aggresive while driving cars or playing sports, aswell. I've even seen some pretty damned scary bicyclers and joggers in my time.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Osweld


They can't. If a kid is that susceptable to influence, video games are going to be the last of his worries.



Video games don't do that, either. It's possible that someone will come away from a game feeling more aggresive, but that's their reaction to it - not some sort of subminal messaging from the game. Alot of people get aggresive while driving cars or playing sports, aswell. I've even seen some pretty damned scary bicyclers and joggers in my time.

thats the "its just adrenaline/arousal" argument. One study compared a violent game (it was either a shooter, or GTA, i forget which) against I think Myst. they found that BOTH games increased arousal,etc but that only the violent one increased aggressiveness.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


thats the "its just adrenaline/arousal" argument. One study compared a violent game (it was either a shooter, or GTA, i forget which) against I think Myst. they found that BOTH games increased arousal,etc but that only the violent one increased aggressiveness.

Who'd get aroused from playing myst?

But I don't see how this is very groundbreaking, or even relevant. Who'd of thunk that people tend to get more aggresive while playing shooters then puzzle games? This doesn't change the fact that it's the person's reaction to it, not the game.

Very few people play vice city and all of a sudden feel an urge to go outside and kill people, someone who's already capable of murder might think 'hey, that looks fun, maybe I'll try it' but it's certainly not the game that made him do it, because he would of already had to been capable of it.

I can play games without geting aggresive, and I can reconize when a game is winding me up and shrug it off. I'm about as anti-war and anti-military as you can get but I subscribe to WW2online, a game where you take on the role of a soldier in a war, and not be bothered by it at all. It's just a game. Heck, I hate cars almost as much as I hate guns, but I still enjoyed driving around Vice City shooting things up and geting in high-speed chases. How is this possible if games possess such influence?

And back to my comparison to cars and sports - where's the lawsuits against Ford for road rage?

[Snotty]

The only reason they had to go and shoot people together is because GTA3 has no multiplayer mode.

No MP sure made me want to shoot people....

[lord of the mark]

from about.com


"The second study by the authors looked at the effects of actual video game violence. Subjects were college students who played either a violent video game (Wolfenstein 3D) or a non-violent game (Myst). These games had been chosen in a pilot study because they differed only in the degree of violence in the game and not on the amount of physiological arousal that they produced. Following video game play the students took some tests and participated in a "Competitive reaction time task" where they were told that they were playing against another student. They were told that they could blast the other student with a noise if they won, and that they could vary the intensity and duration of the blast.

Students in both groups blasted their opponent longer and louder following trials when they had lost and their opponent had just blasted them. Students who had played Wolfenstein 3D blasted their opponent longer and louder on such trials than students who had played Myst. Female students blasted their opponents longer and louder on all trials than male students.

The authors final conclusions are best stated by quoting the article. They state:

The present research demonstrated that in both a correlational investigation using self-reports of real-world aggressive behaviors and an experimental investigation using a standard, objective laboratory measure of aggression, violent video game play was positively related to increases in aggressive behavior. In the laboratory, college students who played a violent video game behaved more aggressively toward an opponent than did students who had played a nonviolent video game. Outside the laboratory, students who reported playing more violent video games over a period of years also engaged in more aggressive behavior in their own lives. Both types of studies–correlational—real delinquent behaviors and experimental—laboratory aggressive behaviors have their strengths and weaknesses. The convergence of findings across such disparate methods lends considerable strength to the main hypothesis that exposure to violent video games can increase aggressive behavior. (Anderson & Dill, 2000) "

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Osweld


Who'd get aroused from playing myst?

But I don't see how this is very groundbreaking, or even relevant. Who'd of thunk that people tend to get more aggresive while playing shooters then puzzle games? This doesn't change the fact that it's the person's reaction to it, not the game.

Very few people play vice city and all of a sudden feel an urge to go outside and kill people, someone who's already capable of murder might think 'hey, that looks fun, maybe I'll try it' but it's certainly not the game that made him do it, because he would of already had to been capable of it.

I can play games without geting aggresive, and I can reconize when a game is winding me up and shrug it off. I'm about as anti-war and anti-military as you can get but I subscribe to WW2online, a game where you take on the role of a soldier in a war, and not be bothered by it at all. It's just a game. Heck, I hate cars almost as much as I hate guns, but I still enjoyed driving around Vice City shooting things up and geting in high-speed chases. How is this possible if games possess such influence?

My grandfather was butcher, and ate beef almost every day, and lived to a ripe old age and never got heart disease - how is this possible if saturated fat causes heart disease?

Things have multiple causes, and something can have a real impact, and yet not have that result in an individual case.

[Snotty]

Any chance for an URL for your source?

Female students blasted their opponents longer and louder on all trials than male students.

What was their justification for this? Surely the shock findings of their study should be 'Women more aggresive than men!!!'

[Snotty]

nm. This is from the full length version of the study.

http://mentalhealth.about.com/gi/dyn...psp784772.html

One possible explanation involves differences in liking for video games. In our participant population, men generally report playing more video games than women, as was seen in Study 1. Even a cursory examination of video game advertisements reveals a clearly male orientation. Thus, it is possible that both the higher reported level of state hostility and the higher level of aggression by women in Study 2 resulted from their being less familiar with video games or less happy at having to play them in this lab experiment. Furthermore, the ambiguous nature of the duration measure may well fit the aggressive style of women in our culture better than the style of men. In any case, what is most important to keep in mind is that exposure to the violent video game increased the aggression of both male and female participants.

so women in this study were more aggresive because:

1) Women dont like computer games, so were unhappy at having to play them (!?!)
2) 'the ambiguous nature of the duration measure' WTF? So, Women cant tell how long they have put someone in pain, or what?
3) And finally it doesnt matter that women are more aggresive than men

Why the hell doesnt it matter? This seems as important a finding as aggresiveness from comp games, yet they brush it under the carpet.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Snotty
nm. This is from the full length version of the study.

http://mentalhealth.about.com/gi/dyn...psp784772.html

Quote:

One possible explanation involves differences in liking for video games. In our participant population, men generally report playing more video games than women, as was seen in Study 1. Even a cursory examination of video game advertisements reveals a clearly male orientation. Thus, it is possible that both the higher reported level of state hostility and the higher level of aggression by women in Study 2 resulted from their being less familiar with video games or less happy at having to play them in this lab experiment. Furthermore, the ambiguous nature of the duration measure may well fit the aggressive style of women in our culture better than the style of men. In any case, what is most important to keep in mind is that exposure to the violent video game increased the aggression of both male and female participants.

so women in this study were more aggresive because:

1) Women dont like computer games, so were unhappy at having to play them (!?!)
2) 'the ambiguous nature of the duration measure' WTF? So, Women cant tell how long they have put someone in pain, or what?
3) And finally it doesnt matter that women are more aggresive than men

Why the hell doesnt it matter? This seems as important a finding as aggresiveness from comp games, yet they brush it under the carpet.

well duh, ya suppose its cause we have loads of statistics on crimes, violent acts in the real world commited by women vs those commited by men - while any such stats for violent video game players vs everyone else (if they even exist) would be meaningless since it would be likely that people predisposed to violence would be more likely to play violent games?

[Snotty]

Thats one long sentence.

Yes, real world stats show men are more aggresive than women, so why are women more aggresive than men after playing comp games? Surely this is important. If it is, Im never letting my gf near my comp again.

[Snotty]

people predisposed to violence would be more likely to play violent games?

Im not entirly sure what your point is here. would it be time for a 'well duh' of my own?

[mrmitchell]

And by the way, after having skipped every post in the thread except LOTM's post--it's possible that the kids are just STUPID. "Oh, yeah, cool, let's go out onto the road and shoot up people like it's just a video game"...sorry, but I don't see the logic from either the lawsuit or their own thinking pattern. This kind of thing baffles me. It sounds like they need medication (or parenting that tells them not to shoot occupied cars? ) instead of (well, in their case, in addition to) taking the game away.

But you know what? If this suit wins, then millions of RESPONSIBLE PLAYERS will have a good (at least for a console game, good) game taken away from them because of kids who can't tell the difference between real life and play life (even after 13-14 yo, can't remember their age), at least in part because of bad raising or lack of attention etc., and victims' families who also lack so much of a logic processor in their mind to believe that the manufacturer of a secondary cause is the person to sue.

In unrelated news, schools accross America have started suing Wrigley's and other gum manufacturers for causing kids to put gum under all their desks.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
In unrelated news, schools accross America have started suing Wrigley's and other gum manufacturers for causing kids to put gum under all their desks.

Of course... they could have made non-sticky gum

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Snotty

Quote:

people predisposed to violence would be more likely to play violent games?

Im not entirly sure what your point is here. would it be time for a 'well duh' of my own?

to explain why you can use real world experience to understand gender difference, but you need a lab experiment to test the impact of games. Game players are self selected.


maybe this will explain it. One of the arguments for bike helmet laws is that people who ride without helmets tend to be more badly injured than people who ride without helmets. Compelling argument right? Except that, IIUC, people who ride without helmets tend to have worse injuries to parts OTHER than the head as well as to the head! Why do you suppose that might be?

[Kirnwaffen]

Yet another meritless lawsuit. The family doesn't have a chance. I think it is now and has always been obvious enough that there are deeper factors at work than the video games themselves, and I think it's definitely worth looking at how these kids were raised, and how they arrived at the conclusion that it was ok to repeat behavior from a video game in the real world.

[Snotty]

All I want to know is if I let my girlfriend play 'the sims' will she then try and blare a horn in my ear?

My real problem here is the gender difference in this study. It runs counter to all the real world experience that I can think of. I appreciate your analogy, but I dont see how the aggresive women finding fits into it.

Are you saying only violent game playing women would choose to take part in this study?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Snotty
All I want to know is if I let my girlfriend play 'the sims' will she then try and blare a horn in my ear?

My real problem here is the gender difference in this study. It runs counter to all the real world experience that I can think of. I appreciate your analogy, but I dont see how the aggresive women finding fits into it.

Are you saying only violent game playing women would choose to take part in this study?

No - Im saying that people who play violent games in real life may be more aggressive to start out than other people. So saying that video game players commit twice as many assaults as non players tells me NOTHING about the effect of video games - therefore to find out the effect of video games you got to do artificial studies like this, and any result you get is interesting, cause theres nothing else available that tells you about the effect of video games.

With gender, people dont (as a general rule) choose their own gender. Its not like people who are already predisposed to violence choose to be male. You either are male or you arent (with rare exceptions) So you CAN use real world data (like say, males commit twice as many assaults as females) Since for gender YOU DO HAVE real world data, no one gives a s**t about an artificial study like this to determine if men or women are more aggressive. If it gives a counterintuitive result you write it off as an anomaly caused by something like women being pissed at having to play Castle Wolfenstein.

[Snotty]

Thanks for clearing that up. The female aggresiveness has still sparked an interest in me, simply because it reinforces behaviour I have witnessed myself (albeit with a sample of 1). The study contained plenty of links for me to track this down in other research.

[Dr Strangelove]

Golly! I guess I oughta run out and buy my copy of GTA3 and Vice City while I still can!

[Dis]

I knew this would happen eventually. I am suprised it took this long.

I wonder how long it will take before someone is hacked to death by a samuri sword until a lawsuit if filed against Tarantino, Disney, and Miramax films.

In any case I must agree GTA III is a very irresponsible game. Though I have played it. I wasn't really good, so I quit playing.