Killerspiele

In search of Germany's virtual scapegoats.

An October Saturday and Stuttgart is pale with the cold. Outside the State Opera House, the city's grand attraction, a skip sits awkward and incongruous to its surroundings. The sides are spray-painted with graffiti, a hip hop-cum-youth club pastiche probably commissioned to soften the otherwise stark utilitarian appearance of this giant iron dustbin. While the murals may obscure the rust, they do not obscure the function, which remains as it ever was: a receptacle for unwanted rubbish. Except, rather than industrial waste or the assorted debris of home movers, this skip has been put here to collect videogames: "Killerspiele", the name given to violent games by Germany's tabloid press.

Midway through the day, a cameraman from a local television station clambers over the skip's side. He needs a compelling shot for the piece that will run tonight, a story about how swathes of Germany's youths have seen the error of their hobby and brought their perilous playthings to this public burning. Crouching on its floor, he angles the camera upwards, while a young boy in a beanie and a puffer jacket leans over and hurls a copy of Grand Theft Auto in with an echoic clack.

'Killerspiele' Screenshot 1

The skip, complete with contents.

The cameraman captures the premeditated moment from this particular angle because any other would reveal the truth of the situation: the skip is otherwise empty. By the end of the day, that sealed copy of San Andreas will be joined by Def Jam: Fight for New York, OpenArena and Small Soldiers, a sorry clutch of ageing titles that represent the full extent of German gamers' ambivalence to this most uncomfortable stunt. For gamers around the world, it's difficult not to feel a sharp sense of schadenfreude. But there's a story behind every story. And the story behind the skip is a tragedy.

At 9:30am on March 12, 2009, a 17-year-old ex-student of Albertville Secondary School in Winnenden walked back through the school doors he left a year earlier. Tim Kretschmer shot nine students and three teachers with a 9mm Beretta semi-automatic pistol, before fleeing the scene, carjacking a vehicle and finally taking his own life during a standoff with police outside of a Volkswagen dealership. Hardy Schober was the father of one of the eight schoolgirls shot dead at point blank range during the rampage. As part of his grieving process he founded the Aktionsbündnis Amoklauf Winnenden, a support group for those affected by the Winnenden shooting.

The skip? Hardy Schober put it there.

The Men Who Stare At Goats

"Videogames are almost reflexively made a scapegoat after every school shooting." Olaf Wolters is the CEO of USK. The German equivalent of the BBFC, this is the organization responsible for choosing the age rating for every videogame released in Germany. If the Winneden killer's rampage was inspired by a videogame, then it was a videogame that Wolters or his staff had already played to completion, and rated accordingly. Wolters knows his scapegoats by name.

'Killerspiele' Screenshot 2

Far Cry, the game blamed for Tim Kretschmer's killings.

"The reason for that probably lies in the fact that tragedy demands an answer to the question of how such a thing could have happened," he continues. "But it is not a question that's easily answered. And this leaves a great helplessness behind. Against this backdrop videogames provide an easy answer, a focal point onto which blame and responsibility can be heaped." So while the Stuttgart skip remains almost literally empty, it nevertheless overflows with metaphor, a holding pen for scapegoats, real or imagined, to help Germany make sense of the senselessness.

Except that, in the case of Winnenden, there are more relevant scapegoats than Small Soldiers. Tim Kretschmer was the son of a marksman who kept 15 weapons and 4500 bullets of live ammunition in the family home. The gun that was used in the shootings was held in his parent's bedroom, rather than locked up in a safe. Tim Kretschmer may have played Far Cry, but then, in 2009, would it not be stranger for a 17-year-old boy to not play videogames? In terms of the mix of ingredients that went into informing Kretschmer's deadly decision choice, Killerspiele were at most a light seasoning upon layers of sociopathic alienation and unhappy circumstance.

Despite this, the view that violent videogames were a key contributor to this tragedy is far from limited to the Aktionsbündnis Amoklauf Winnenden in Germany. Following the Winnenden shooting a number of retailers stopped stocking 18+ games as a socio-political statement, without any legal imperative to do so. Then, in June 2009, Germany's interior ministers proposed a ban on all violent videogames to be discussed in the Bundestag. Was this an act of political point-scoring in the aftermath of a tragedy? Perhaps. But the strength and spread of Germany's antagonism towards violent videogames is more powerful and enduring than mere electioneering allows for.

While American gamers have grown used to camera-hungry hysterics clambering over one another to draw causal links between school homicide and videogames, in Germany the anti-videogame movement has a more pervasive, persuasive tone. And this reveals itself in the countries' complex age rating system, which goes further than any other to ensure that unsuitable videogames don't get into the hands of unsuitable players. So with such strict controls in place, why the public hand-wringing? Is it mere misguided accusation, or is there a tenable failing in the system?

Age of Consent

With not one but three tiers of adult classification for violent videogames and movies, Germany's age-rating system demands some explanation. Here's Wolters to clarify: "Games submitted to the USK, which are deemed able to affect the growth of young people, receive an 18+ certificate. These titles can be advertised anywhere and sold openly in any shop to adults. The game might be entirely uncut (as for example with GTAIV), or it may have been cut to a certain degree to secure the rating.

'Killerspiele' Screenshot 3

Hardy Schober with some concerned parents.

"Next we have games that are deemed able to endanger the growth of children. These are denied an age rating and, in most cases, indexed by the Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons (BPjM). Games without a rating may not be advertised, reviewed, or displayed openly in shops. However, it is entirely legal to publish them, to sell them and to buy them in Germany, usually from under the counter.

"In addition to these two tiers of adult videogame, there's a third category, those that include 'horrible or inhuman violence against humans in terms of § 131 of the German criminal code'. These titles, such as Manhunt and Condemned, are fully banned from public availablity. While possession of these prohibited games is not punishable, their distribution, public display or sale can result in a prison sentence."

To outsiders this can seem like a convoluted system, adult games distinguished from one another by fuzzy boundaries that will no doubt cause yet more confusion to onlookers. For example, how on earth does the USK distinguish between a violent game that can adversely affect the growth or young person and one that endangers healthy development? "These undefined legal concepts have to be interpreted by the consultants during the evaluation of the game," agrees Wolters. "During this evaluation the game is judged in its entirety and we'll then approach the game's publisher with a list of the problematic scenes in order to give them a chance to edit them in the hope of securing an 18+ rating. Many publishers will try to do this as indexed games are prohibited from advertising, review and public display, and are only saleable on the quiet."

Censorship of Fools?

Perhaps it's precisely this sort of under-the-counter practice that gives the videogame industry its unsavoury image in the German social consciousness, all grubby plastic bags filled with unspecified horrors passing quietly from hand to hand. Is it any wonder that the public moves so quickly to pin the blame on these illicit playthings whenever a young person seemingly mimics their violence? More problematically, censorship is illegal in Germany under the fifth article of the constitution. While nobody is prohibiting game developers from making whatever games they want to, surely these strict USK impositions forcing publishers to cut content or be prohibited from publicising their game, is a form of after-the-fact censorship? I put the question to Wolters.

"Neither the indexing of games, nor the confiscating of them represents a censorship. The ban on censorship in Art. 5 of the German Constitution refers to pre-censorship. In other words, a creation cannot be forbidden before it is published. The indexing or the confiscating of games can only be done after they are published and placed on the market. There is no censorship."

Despite this, there are some high-profile voices calling for even more strict impositions against violent videogames in Germany. In June reports were circulated revealing that Germany's 16 Interior Ministers had banded together to ask the Bundestag to ban the production and distribution of violent videogames. I ask Olaf Wolters whether the proposal is mere politicking. "The claim on a general ban on violent games is in first line political activism and is probably not realistic at this time. Firstly, there is no evidence that the existing minor safety policy is inadequate. And of course, a complete ban on games that contain violence would be like a censorship which is incompatible with Article 5 of the German Constitution."

'Killerspiele' Screenshot 4

Crysis in action.

For Cevat Yerli, a Managing Director of Crytek, the German-based developer responsible for games rated 18+, like Crysis, such a ban would represent more than mere inconvenience. It would mean relocating the entire studio to another country, something he has threatened to do publicly in the past in the face of such strong opposition to the sort of games he creates. "No other country discusses this issue with the sort of high intensity that the Germans do," he explains. "When one considers that German law contains some of the strictest protections of minors in the world, not to mention tight restrictions on weaponry, you have to assume that much of the discussion is politically-motivated. I think one reason why Germans use videogames as scapegoat for school shootings more often than other countries, derives from its history in the 20th Century. That's certainly one reason why the debate is a totally different to comparable ones in other countries."

Viva le Resistance?

'Killerspiele' Screenshot 5

German youths protest against the ban.

Of course, as in any democracy there are voices that rally to defend the rights of violent videogames, freely speaking out against what the perceived prejudices have aimed towards them. German parliament ministers Armin Lachet and Andreas Krautscheid are staunch defenders of Germany's current system of videogame classification, and argue publicly that further impositions would be both unnecessary and prejudiced. At a grass roots level too, gamers have rallied together to defend their rights, not only by campaigning against their antagonists, but also, occasionally, by seeking to engage them in conversation.

Peter Schleusser, a 38-year-old construction machine technician from Oberhausen, started a web petition in direct response to the interior ministers' proposals this summer. Within a few short weeks his petition had gathered over 50,000 signatures, a high enough number that Schleusser was invited to the German parliament to debate the issue with politicians. I tracked Schleusser down and asked him how the petition came about.

"I first read about this violent videogame-related resolution on the internet. An online petition seemed to be best way to make a stand against the proposals to me at the time. The petition exceeded my expectations by far. It was a spontaneous decision and I didn't do any promotion. In fact, I first learned about its gigantic success from reading about it in the German press.

"I don't know if the petition will be successful in helping to avert a ban, but I hope so. At least there are now more discussions about it in the public as gamers have come together with one voice. That's a good start. I hope that our resistance continues to grow. Hundreds of thousands of peaceful players are going to be criminalised if there is a ban on 18+ games in Germany."

Despite Schleusser 's valiant efforts in providing gamers with a more united voice on the issues, there are many who argue there's nothing to worry about as any such ban would be unconstitutional. I spoke to Marcus, a German lawyer and enthusiastic gamer, who asked to remain anonymous, about whether he thought the proposed ban had any real chance of coming into effect. "I am quite convinced that the politicians behind this will try to push it through. However, whether such a law would be ratified is far from certain - and even if it was, I am sure someone would take it to the Federal Constitutional Court, and I have serious doubts that this court would find such a law that generally bans all violent games valid."

'Killerspiele' Screenshot 6

Condemned 2. Pretty grim, actually.

It is, of course, a polarising debate, and gamers are often as guilty as the tabloids for rushing to extremes and failing to hear the genuine concerns of their opponents. But Marcus believes there is a third way, one that supports conversation and diplomacy in place of grandstanding and rabble-rousing. "While I obviously don't agree with many of the conclusions of the anti-gaming lobby and their over-the-top reactions and proposals, the fact that there is national sensitivity for the issue, and a wide discussion, strikes me as being important. I am all for a very, very strict system that makes sure, as far as possible, that violent games do not fall into the hands of minors. In reality, very few people actually claim that games turn people into killers. That's often a straw-man argument spread by gamers. A more prevalent argument is, for example, that games can teach a behavioural pattern.

"A priori denying any possibility of negative influence whatsoever of violent games strikes me as a little naive," he continues. "The fact that many gamers engage in the same polarised debate as their opponents has not helped the discussion here in Germany. It's important to openly discuss these things. The best results are achieved where both parties are ready to listen to each other, and unfortunately, many gamers are more stubborn than the politicians, undermining the admirable efforts of other gamers (and the gaming press) in Germany to have a balanced, intelligent discussion about the whole matter."

'Killerspiele' Screenshot 7

And Manhunt 2, probably the most famous of the "offenders".

There is a tangible sense that, if gamers simply play the waiting game, they will in time win the arguments. The older generations of Germans who don't play videogames will retire, and with them will follow their reactions to gaming's often grisly depictions, which recall 20th Century history that they, more than anyone, would rather not be used for sport and entertainment. In 20 years the vast majority of Germany's Interior Ministers will have grown up playing videogames, and will share a language and common perspective that ensures new scapegoats will have to be found in the aftermath of school shootings.

But there's a cold arrogance to that point of view. The effects and dangers of violent videogames should be fully discussed, debated, tested and continually checked. We should always be mindful that videogames offer mere fleeting entertainment while life, in contrast, is infinitely precious. The former should never threaten the latter. Hardy Schober's anguish may be misplaced and his tabloid-friendly skip stunt deserving of mockery. But more than that, he deserves a conversation. If gamers cannot afford him that, then in some ways, they really are to blame.

Comments (115) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Lionheart #1 2 years ago

    I want that Xbox controller... it rocks :o)
  • Collymilad #2 2 years ago

    It's the 21st century scapegoat.

    Just let it blow over. Societies problems are nothing to do with games. Bad parenting and bad governing. End of.
  • Lionheart #3 2 years ago

    @ Collymilad

    Well said mate.
  • mkreku #4 2 years ago

    Down with violence! Let all disputes in games be solved the Puzzle Quest way!

    http://ww w.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/0...
  • Azazel #5 2 years ago

    Ich möchte neun Erdmännchen töten.
  • CaptainBinky #6 2 years ago

    Excellent article :o)

    I don't know what effect violent videogames have on kids. I suspect it's somewhere between "none" and "some" depending on the kid but I tire of the brush-off "well it didn't effect ME" arguments when the sort of games we played as young impressionable children had 3 colours and were made out of blobs. Even the graphic nasty films I would sneakily watch in the 80s were pretty tame compared to some of the gore and violence you get nowadays.

    While I think assigning all blame to games and condoning bans and what-not is ridiculous, to deny any responsibility and brush off arguments as "it's JUST a game" is also equally wrong.
    Edited by 1 at 04/11/09 @ 13:31
  • bad09 #7 2 years ago

    Last night, Far Cry 2........

    I shot an unarmed man in the head, then attacked a guard post mowing down everyone with my machine gun mounted lorry. I jumped from the vehicle relentless, spotted a couple of guys in a hut and petrol bombed them laughing with glee at their screams. I heard something behind me, one of the scum was trying to get away in a jeep! I drew my machete and cut him to pieces right there in the drivers seat before he could drive away. Jumped back in my lorry and saw two Zebra investigating the carnage and with evil happiness I slaughtered the animals.

    Pretty grim and disturbing......maybe the germans have a point? Nah bollocks it's too much fun!

    (as you can tell I loving FC2!)
    Edited by 2 at 04/11/09 @ 13:33
  • Sunyavadin #8 2 years ago

    I'm totally painting a 360 controller up like that one!
  • Boomerang #9 2 years ago

    I've been playing games for about 20 years. Throughout my life, i've murdered, maimed, beheaded and generally face-raped countless victims. But you know what? I'm emotionally intelligent enough to realise that what i do in-game may push those primal buttons we all love to explore, but in the real world these kinds of things are Very Bad.

    As much as i've enjoyed it all, I've never killed anyone. I've wanted to, but have never acted on it. Don't blame games. Blame people.
  • agparrot #10 2 years ago

    Nice article, pretty much summing up my feelings on it really. There is a place for a discussion about these matters, and largely it seems like Germany, in part at least, is prepared to get involved in this discussion, as it appears that they are at the sharp end of the violence in games debate at the moment.

    It's such a big subject, and one that we are still learning about in many ways. I think the last paragraph, with the sort of throwaway comment about gamers not being able to get involved in a serious discussion about videogame violence seems to ignore much of the more recent stuff like the Byron report, and the fact that many gamers are now like the semi-anonymous German lawyer Marcus, who is a grown up videogaming person with non-sociopathic tendencies. Sure, on the internet we might joke about violence and offer the wry observation that anybody who thinks games and violence are linked should be killed or tortured... but that is the *internet*, and even a visit to the EG Expo would show that gamers in real life aren't the same as they are on the internet. In case this was in some way difficult to figure out.

    Really it is only closed-mindedness and fear that allows the idea that there is a causal link between games and violence. If people are playing lots of violent games and then going out and commiting acts of violence, this isn't because of the violent games, it is because they are broken people.
  • Collymilad #11 2 years ago

    @ Captainbinky.

    I see what you're saying. However you have to seperate off the effect the game could have and that persons personality, if you get what I mean. If a person becomes violent because of a game, as far as I'm concerned they have something wrong with them.

    Yes, kids could be affected because they are still developing etc, but you see there's one problem here, these games are rated 18 (most of them) so BY LAW they shouldn't have access to them in the first place. A mentally developed person (as most people are, at least at a base level at the age of 18) isn't so suceptable to influence from something such as a game in my opinion.

    I'm not saying that games do not play some part in some violent incidents, however I don't accept that games are to blame. Parents who allow vulnerable kids to play these games are to blame.

    "I'm emotionally intelligent enough to realise that what i do in-game may push those primal buttons we all love to explore, but in the real world these kinds of things are Very Bad"

    Congratulate your parents for me, they actually brought you up properly.
    Edited by 1 at 04/11/09 @ 13:38
  • cianchristopher #12 2 years ago

    History is full of war, genocide, conflicts, murder, torture, slaughter, slavery, rape, incest, GIANT ENEMY CRABS, oppression, more war, battles, sieges, drinking, smoking, ORBITAL DROP SHOCK TROOPERS and the like....

    And that's just the good stuff!

    I think videogames are THE CAUSE OF IT ALL!!!
  • peteb #13 2 years ago

    Really interesting article, particularly so for me since I'm living here. I still get all my games from UK, or from a local indie shop, but I am really dreading the day everything goes digital delivery, because then I have no chance of getting my uncut games. Doom, Mortal Kombat 2 and Duke Nukem and other pixellated bloody games are still banned here (only because they were banned once a loooooong time ago), so I couldn't download the XBLA versions. The Wolfenstein demo with its swastikas and all was available for download though. Curious.

    Those USK ratings on the boxes are getting ridiculously big too. I mean, come on!
  • madgerald Verified Studio Head of PR & Marketing, Colossal Games LTD #14 2 years ago

    But is it better than Halo?



    ..Down with this sort of thing



    ... Careful now


    anyway... Games don't kill people; people kill people - and have done since man first learned that picking up a rock and belting your neighbour over the head with it can get you a new cave and a new wife.
    Edited by 1 at 04/11/09 @ 13:57
  • SAMagic #15 2 years ago

    Excellent article.

    I absolutely agree that opposing sides of the issue should discuss and examine concerns by each side. At the basic level, I sincerely hope that the majority, if not all, of gamers agree that violent games should not fall into the hands of minors, while pro-censorship groups should realise that there are millions of gamers who play violent games and they do not convert them into killers.
  • kinky_mong #16 2 years ago

    Ich nichten lichten!
  • CaptainBinky #17 2 years ago

    @Collymilad

    Oh definitely, there's a parenting issue involved. I mean, how many times do you see a mother/father walk into a shop to buy GTA for their 7 year old kid? I remember when I was a kid, my Grandmother was concerned about buying me Ghouls 'n' Ghosts on C64 for Christmas because the box art had skulls and demons on the cover. My mum had to re-assure her that it was fine. THEN it was a case of, "don't worry about the game, it's fine. The box makes it look bad". Now it's the other way round, it's "look, that 18 rating is there for a reason. The in-game content is much worse than the box implies".

    So yes, a parenting issue combined with responsibility from vendors (which largely does seem to be the case nowadays). But at the end of the day, kids are always going to get their hands on them, so for developers to hide behind a "hell, it says 18 on the box" stance is a bit irresponsible when I question whether there is REALLY any need for some of more extreme acts you can commit in a handful of games.
    Edited by 1 at 04/11/09 @ 13:58
  • JohnnyWashnGo #18 2 years ago

    I used to play Streaker on the Spectrum... never made me wanna run around town naked.
  • andywilkie35 #19 2 years ago

    Das Killerspiele auf Deutschland gegehen!
  • Korpers #20 2 years ago

    I got addicted to Tetris and felt strangely compelled to batter everyone to death by dropping T shaped blue blocks from my 6th floor window; but it's ok I played Battlefield Bad Company straight after and just wanted to go round dropping helpful first aid for everyone I'd clobbered.

    How unconveniently unconventional of me. Nob - ed media folk.
  • spekkeh #21 2 years ago

    I tire of the brush-off "well it didn't effect ME" arguments when the sort of games we played as young impressionable children had 3 colours and were made out of blobs

    Well you do know what they say about Pacman and running around darkened rooms listening to repetitive music and munching magic pills?

    But you're right of course, and if on the one hand you're saying that games are actually good for you, because they're used in military training, and surgeons can operate better when they play lots of games, and growing up playing games makes you better at processing cognitively demanding sense data, then you should bite the bullet and admit that maybe they're having a negative effect as well.

    However much of this is very much a scientific debate, and as always it's painful to see politicians skipping that to impose their own prejudice.

    Well written article.
  • Korpers #22 2 years ago

    Hmmm, that sounded better in my head.....I'll get my coat.

    //clip clip, clip clop, clip clop, clip clop......creak.....slam.
  • Collymilad #23 2 years ago

    "So yes, a parenting issue combined with responsibility from vendors (which largely does seem to be the case nowadays). But at the end of the day, kids are always going to get their hands on them, so for developers to hide behind a "hell, it says 18 on the box" stance is a bit irresponsible when I question whether there is REALLY any need for some of more extreme acts you can commit in a handful of games."

    Yes they will. But what do you do? Have no adult entertainment? I don't see what people expect the games industry to do. They don't market the games at kids, they submit them to the government-created/backed ratings board. They do what the law requires. These games are violent so I don't see what there is to discuss. The two options as far as I can see are have no violent media, or actually toughen up and enforce the laws that are supposed to stop people getting these games.

    I know which one I'd rather have.

    "I question whether there is REALLY any need for some of more extreme acts you can commit in a handful of games. "

    People aren't really commiting acts beyond shooting people though are they? You could easily argue that as a requirement in many games. So we would have to get rid of the shooting (as that's the crime commited in most of these "game caused crimes";).

    I don't get the whole "should games exist if kids may get their hands on them" thing. If we are going to go down that road we'd better cleans society of anything that might make some nutter go off on one someday. It sounds harsh but these things are going to happen. People are always going to flip and if it's not because of a game it will be something else. I don't see why we should possibly destroy a very exciting path in the future of entertainment because of this - violence does have it's place in the human mind whether people want to admit it or not. The difference is you have control over your actions.
    Edited by 3 at 04/11/09 @ 14:13
  • menage #24 2 years ago

    Let's blame rap again. Or witches. Anybody got a duck we can weigh?

    Go look on the internet for some really disturbing stuff.
  • IneptPercy #25 2 years ago

    i think anybody who killers somebody in a game then decides they want to do it for real has bigger problems, even if the game was the final nail as such without that game it would have only been a matter of time for the said person to see something to set them off.

    On the flip side sticking an 18 on it doesn't seem to help, only speaking for the UK here but how many under 18's play on GTA, probably more than the over 18's.

    In all honesty I can't see an answer, as an adult I should be able to buy what I want, but on the flip side of that kids will get there hands on it so should it exist?
  • mattius30 #26 2 years ago

    I find this subject fascinating as when you look back over the decades and centuries there has always been a 'scapegoat' for evil behaviour. Books, art, music, films, TV, video games; it seems people are terrified that there is a magic 'key' that unlocks the devil within.

    In days of old, books were feared as they could transport the reader to an alternative world, people thought photographs captured your soul, Elvis Presley's hips threatened to brainwash a whole generation of teenagers into a hellworld of sex and now video games can be the only reason that kids go on murder/violence rampages.

    I think its just easier to solely blame a visual, potent, external influence rather than appreciate that human nature is fragile and extreme acts are performed by the individual for a whole host of reasons. The scary truth is that anything in life can be stimulus to provoke an emotional reaction. For some, Far Cry may inspire their own massacre, while for others a biography of Jeffry Dahmer will spark its own campaign. Surely its all about the individual that is absorbing the entertainment.

    Maybe Far Cry did influence this boy to go on a shooting spree - but surely all ideas would've been utterly squashed had his father not had a gun and a ton of bullets sitting on the bedside table. Anyone can read a book, watch a film or play a video game but how many have access to firearms?

    But, I guess it is human nature that after a terrible event that involves a loved-one and defies belief, you have to blame something...
  • CaptainBinky #27 2 years ago

    @Collymilad

    I think the issue is a bit more complex than just is there shooting people or not? It's the way that it's handled - how much taste is involved. There's a huge difference between saving the world shooting some VERY BAD MEN and a game endorsing KILL THE INNOCENT. And then there's shooting someone, and sawing their head off with a rusty file.
  • Collymilad #28 2 years ago

    @Captainbinky

    I agree with you on that. I actually choose not to play games that encourage this type of thing and I do think we could do without those ones. I think I know what you mean about the taste. I personally wouldn't want to play a game that involved people suffering when you killed them even though they are only computer generated, but those are few and far between. Most just die straight away with not much drama.

    All I will say is that I think it comes down to the individual and the way they absorb media as another guy said and I don't think getting rid of it all is the way to go. I mean you seem like a balanced person. Can you imagine playing CS even every day would make you feel ok to go out and kill a load of people in reality? I played CS for 3 years nearly every day and my perception of how acts of violence affect people in the real world didn't change on bit... My point is that I think if someone has the mental state to be swayed by a game something else will trigger it anyway.
    Edited by 1 at 04/11/09 @ 14:18
  • Retroid #29 2 years ago

    Early 20th Century: "I blame Musichall!"
    Mid 20th Century: "I blame comic books!"
    Late 20th Century: "I blame video nasties!"
    Early 21st Century: "I blame first-person shooters!"

    The knee-jerk / easy solution crowd never learn, they just go for what's popular and they don't understand themselves.
  • GamesConnoisseur #30 2 years ago

    Games should be treated equally with another medium that are as popular, movies/DVD.

    Good numbers of them are only suitable for mature adults with a very good reason, no one is for letting anyone under the legal age watch Saw or play GTA?

    I believe that there is almost universal agreement that there are Market suitable for adults only, if violence games should be banned then what about movies/DVD?! Wasn't that already tried with the video nasties hysteria in the past? Tabloids egged on the dangers of Chainsaw Texas Massacre, Evil Dead, Driller Killer etc?

    The real causes will always be MOST likely the social upbringing and the emotional/mental developments being nutured the appropraite way.

    Video game, movies in the hand of the underage emotionally retarded sociopath will always be frightening to image as that what the hysteria is partly about. How much does game make a person flips?

    Usually there are better reasons as given in the article, but it is also about the rights of mature gamers to enjoy their hobbies which is not just for kiddies. Movies are much luckier as society is better able to see the medium as being for everyone but respects it more as mature one. Gaming aren't there yet but a great majority of the gamers aren't under 18 for feck sake!
  • Paulie_P #31 2 years ago

    Last night, Far Cry 2........

    I shot an unarmed man in the head, then took a malaria attack when I attacked a guard post mowing down everyone with my machine gun mounted lorry had to take a few pills in the middle of the gunfight while getting shot repeatedly. I jumped from the vehicle relentless, spotted a couple of guys in a hut and tried to shoot but my gun jammed petrol bombed them laughing with glee at their screams. I heard something behind me, one of the scum was trying to get away in a jeep! I drew my machete and cut him to pieces right there in the drivers seat before he could drive away. Jumped back in my lorry which broke down two yards down the road and saw two Zebra investigating the carnage and with evil happiness I slaughtered the animals. Thought I'd just hike it and got stuck on a bit of scenery so turned the game off.

    (as you can tell I hated FC2!)
  • Fab4 #32 2 years ago

    "Early 20th Century: "I blame Musichall!"
    Mid 20th Century: "I blame comic books!"
    Late 20th Century: "I blame video nasties!"
    Early 21st Century: "I blame first-person shooters!"

    The knee-jerk / easy solution crowd never learn, they just go for what's popular and they don't understand themselves. "

    And the only constants were religion and alcohol ;-)
  • Zebula77 #33 2 years ago

    A good read, this. And also a subject I'm more than a little interested in. I'm a huge horror buff, whether it's comics, graphic novels, art, movies or video games - I'm a big consumer of these things.

    I think with ever generation, there's a new scape goat. During the 80s it was metal music and slasher movies. Today it's video games. I think it'll blow over. People will realise games don't make killers. In the same way that listening to a Black Metal song won't make you a Satanist, for example. Of course, people who simply don't know better, will always heap the blame on videogames or movies. It's just the nature of people fearing the unknown, and also because really, truly getting into what reasons there might be for people commiting atrocities like school shootings is simply too painful.

    I've been playing stuff like the Silent Hill games, Condemned, Manhunt and watched movies like Cannibal Holocaust, A l'interieur etc. and have yet to commit a single act of violence. That's proof enough for me, altho to what extent or degree people are influenced by games or movies, is obviously individual.
  • BabyJesus #34 2 years ago

    Excellent read there, Kudos to Mr Parkin.
  • berelain #35 2 years ago

    Great article. Whilst I personally question the need for games like Manhunt, I think games like GTA are actually becoming a lot more responsible. GTA4 does a better job than most of its predecessors of actually showing consequences of your actions, by making the people in its world a lot more believable.

    I personally wouldn't be without my shooters, though I can take or leave the gore. But there is a line between violence and sadistic violence, both of which ought to be used thoughtfully, but particularly the latter.
  • IneptPercy #36 2 years ago

    As mentioned there is a lot on the individual, in my case my parents let me watch some 18 rated films from a young age ( remeber watching robocop when I was 9), yet there is some films I asked to watch and I got a straight no and now having seen them in my adult life I can see why.

    Meanwhile you can get some adults who are able to buy films/games yet aren't capable of coping with such things.

    It all comes down to seperation from reality, I know when watching hostel I know it wouldn't be right to torture somebody (and don't think I have the stomach for it). Likewise when shooting the koreans in Crysis, that it isn't right to shoot people for the fun of it and yet again I wouldn't dare go near a real war zone. Basically I can see th difference in my life and characters I play/watch in games/movies.

    If somebody can't seperate waht the see/read/play from reality then it doesn't have the potential to go very wrong. But how do you stop that? lock everybody away from everything?
  • Grayvern #37 2 years ago

    Killings like this can be seen as the extreme expression of values of competition and dominance that exist allready within society. In the same vein no one talks about is that the news companies will have killed more people by reporting on the case the the the perpetrator due to it's sensationalism creating copy cats and partly legitamising the actions.

    Howeve a few deaths caused by videogames is low down on a long list of problems. It may be tragic, but more people would be saved with traffic or work safety laws than censorship, even if games were proven to affect some people.
  • Paulie_P #38 2 years ago

    I have played videogames for nearly 20 years and was not violent and angry. However dealing with the court system and csa in this country for the past 2 years has made me extremely angry (still non-violent for the sake of my daughter). Maybe they should look into the link between violence and the alienation of fathers from their children!
  • bad09 #39 2 years ago

    Talking of watching 18 movies when we were young I actually was a huge horror buff when I was 8-9. I watched banned movies such as Evil Dead and Exorcist etc. and was always watching 18's as a kid.

    My mum let me because I had an understanding of the real world and that these were fake stories, just movies, meant to scare and shock you. With that experience I don't really think once 18 you are automatically aware of adult themes so think age ratings are pretty silly myself but understand why they are there.

    I'm not gonna condemn all parents who let kids play/watch over 18 stuff but FFS take some responsibility and make sure you know how your child will take what it's seeing and teach your child the very real difference between entertainment and how you deal with people in the real world.

    @ Paulie_P

    I hear ya, I still think it's great though and there's black people in it so that teaches me to hate blacks if I remember correctly from RE5 :)
    Edited by 1 at 04/11/09 @ 14:43
  • Nithron #40 2 years ago

    Games don't make me wanna kill people. Bono does.
  • YourMessageHere #41 2 years ago

    This is a good article generally but it's something of a sermon for the choir. Everyone here knows all this already. In particular:

    Hardy Schober's anguish may be misplaced and his tabloid-friendly skip stunt deserving of mockery. But more than that, he deserves a conversation. If gamers cannot afford him that, then in some ways, they really are to blame.

    misses the point somewhat. Gamers who can be bothered to get involved in defending the passtime they enjoy, by and large, are completely willing to have conversations. The whole problem springs from the fact that the other side are not. Anti-game people are for the most part completely resolute and totally uninterested in the opposing point of view. It's like saying that the 15th Century witchhunters deserved a conversation with the witching community.

    Plus of course in this kind of situation nobody dares to say "you may have lost a kid, but that doesn't give you licence to ignore reason, kindly calm the fuck down, let the other side speak, and let someone impartial make a judgement here".
  • IneptPercy #42 2 years ago

    "Maybe they should look into the link between violence and the alienation of fathers from their children! "

    I agree with this one, I am not in any kind of custody battle but it scares me to think that if I ended up in that situation the only chance I have is if the mother is a abusing, drug taking prostistute. Even then I only have a small chance.
  • Paulie_P #43 2 years ago

    @bad09

    I couldn't help myself. Might be tempted to give Far Cry 2 another chance. Though last time I gave a game another chance was Assassins Creed - now there's a game that near made me violent!
  • kangarootoo #44 2 years ago

    "But more than that, he deserves a conversation. If gamers cannot afford him that, then in some ways, they really are to blame."

    Very true. Often as not, the response from gamers is "get stuffed". However, I'm pleased to see this particular thread is rather more open to discussion.


    For my mind, we need to make a seperation between TASTE and NEGATIVE EFFECTS.

    There is a fair bit of discussion on this page about which games do a good job of conveying to the player the results of their actions, and which games go "too far". But what is unclear is whether we are talking about taste or negative effects.


    We might well say "game X was a serious and balanced depiction of a terrible incident, whereas game Y was just killing for the fun of it", but usually in that sort of case we are talking about taste. Game X was ok, but game Y went "too far". The danger here is whether we start to talk about banning certain games on ground of taste.

    Personally, I think that is extremely dangerous ground. Partly because taste is something that is constantly changing in every society. And partly because on issues of taste, the "harm" caused is imaginary. People too frequently confuse "taking offense" with "suffering harm", and that particular confusion is a TERRIBLE scurge on humanity. I know that sounds dramatic, but if someone believes they are suffering harm, they are more likely to give harm in response. How many times has somone used being insulted as a justification for physical violence?


    Now, whether a game can have negative effects on a person (sane or otherwise) is an ENTIRELY seperate issue, and should concern itself only with scientific fact. It might be argued that if someone could prove beyond doubt that violent games made people violent (not saying they are, just bare with me) that all violent games should be banned. It no longer becomes an issue of taste, or personal freedoms, or individual responsibilities. It is a matter of scientific fact.

    However, if it can equally be proved that violent games CANNOT make people violent (except perhaps in exceptional circumstances, where pre-conditions exist), there is really NO case for banning any of them. However abhorrent someone might find a violent game, if there is PROOF that it will not create a violent response in a gamer, the only possible justification for its ban is one of taste (which as we've seen with the recent BBC oversensitivity nonsense, is entirely transient and never a good basis for legislation).


    Too often we mix the two disingenuously, because we have ulterior motives. People who displike violent games want to ban them for reasons of taste, but pretend they are reasons of science... and those that like violent games happily ignore any scientific content to the discussion, but pretend they are defending games on the basis of taste and freedom of choice.
    Edited by 1 at 04/11/09 @ 14:59
  • guernican #45 2 years ago

    An excellent, well-researched, thoughtful piece. I congratulate you.

    As an aside, some months ago I was stood in line in the Upper Street branch of GAME in North London. The woman in front of me had a 10-year-old in tow and a copy of Manhunt in her hand. Used copy, less than a tenner. Bargain.

    I looked at her. I looked at her child. I looked at the assistant. She put the game on the counter. I looked at the assistant again. Alright, so it's none of my business really. Except, except, maybe she just doesn't know what's going on here. Maybe she's hasn't even read the box. So I asked her if she knew the content of the game. She didn't. I asked her if it was for the boy standing next to her. It was. I said my 10-second piece, she put the game down and left, with her child shooting poisonous glances at me over his shoulder.

    OK, so it probably was none of my business, but I sure as Christ wouldn't buy my 10-year-old a copy of Manhunt. I probably wouldn't buy him Fallout 3 either, but I'd certainly consider the Bethesda title over the Rockstar one because, frankly, one of them depicts ultra-gore in a ludicrous cartoon way, and one of them has thoughtful shots from multiple camera angles of incredibly visceral hand-to-hand violence with a leering Brian Cox egging you on in the process. It's just not a game children should play, and if that makes me a fucking prude, so be it.

    The assistant, by the way, had very little to say about it at all. If I'd had the energy, I probably would have made a comment about it being her duty to point these things out and not mine, but I'd swallowed enough Mary Whitehouse Pie for one day.
    Edited by 1 at 04/11/09 @ 14:57
  • jiveguy #46 2 years ago

    That controller is the bonus companion for the xbox collectors edition of Dragon Age. It's just had a fight and is caught here buying a new Robe of PlusOneining.
    Edited by 1 at 04/11/09 @ 14:57
  • DrStrangelove #47 2 years ago

    Excellent article.

    Being a long-time player of Killerspiele myself, I do see their psychological dangers. I heavily doubt they affect any sane person who has a foothold in real life, but given the circumstances, they can have a critical impact. For example, a teenage boy who feels inferior to others, often flees from a world where he is a loser, into a virtual world where he is a winner by gunning down all those people he hates. Being in an age when you learn how to deal with life, I consider it harmful to spend most of the time with learning how to shoot people, instead of dealing with other people and their feelings. And sometimes, the real world is more and more driven away by the virtual world, and there's a growing desire to make this virtual superiority become reality. Luckily, this rarely happens. But if this boy has access to guns and is at a point when he is about to end his own existence in the world he hates, it can happen.

    Of course, there are a lot of other factors involved, failed upbringing, social and emotional deficits, etc. But saying the game has nothing to do with it, is indeed naive.

    The anti-game actionism, on the other hand, is rubbish, for several reasons. First, the games are only a scapegoat to distract from the other problems involved. Then, we already have an 18+/ban policy, and it totally doesn't prevent the kids from playing the games, especially the ones who are psychically endangered. A stricter policy wouldn't affect them at all. Then, as the article already pointed out, it would violate our own basic law. So while it's highly doubtful it will do any good, it will certainly do harm.

    Interestingly, there was a change in weapon law since, but because the weapon lobby is strong, it was only a cosmetic change. But all weapons used in German school shootings so far were legally purchased and registered, so I guess a ban on firearms would make much more sense than a ban on killer games. It won't happen.

    I'm also waiting for the day the bible will be banned because it says homosexuals must die.
  • kangarootoo #48 2 years ago

    @DrStrangelove

    "Being a long-time player of Killerspiele myself, I do see their psychological dangers. I heavily doubt they affect any sane person who has a foothold in real life, but given the circumstances, they can have a critical impact"

    I'm sorry to get on your case, but that is complete and utter supposition. It is the same as starting a sentence "as a parent". You can play violent games all day and all night, but that doesn't qualify you to make statements about their psychological impact that you can't possibly support with evidence.

    Everything you state is supposition, and its fair supposition, but my issue is that the words "I suppose" don't occur frequently enough. It is in my opinion a serious problem that almost all discussion of this subject takes this form. People voice suppositions quite reaonably, but then with absolutely no evidence they move to declaring their suppositions as fact (often using flimsy anecdotal association - "I've played games for years" - as 'evidence').
  • kipper #49 2 years ago

    An excellent article. Well done to Eurogamer and Simon Parkin.

    Hopefully in the future, cooler-headed politicians (not just Germans, Americans and others are just as guilty of scapegoating) will see that if you want to stop madmen shooting people with guns, the only proven solution is to ban guns.

    [link url=http:/ /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre
    ]http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_ma...[/link]

    [link url=http://en.wiki pedia.org/wiki/Firearms_(Amendment)_(No._2)_Act_1997
    ]http://en.wiki pedia.org/wiki/Firearms_(A...[/link]

    Britain's Gun Laws Seen as Curbing Attacks
    http://ww w.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...
  • AliRay #50 2 years ago

    I'd actually like it if they could completely ban videogames in Germany, it'd make an interesting microcosm for the rest of us to study.

    Also, the next time they have a school shooting I'd like to see what gets blamed.
  • kangarootoo #51 2 years ago

    @kipper

    Bill Hicks had a good skit about the number of handguns in the UK and the US, and the comparative number of deaths from handguns in each country.

    But in the words of the great man "There is no connection... between having a handgun.... and shooting someone with it. And you would be a fool and communist to make one."
  • AliRay #52 2 years ago

    Furthermore, this kind of knee-jerk reaction and calling for things to get banned when tragic incidents occur is the sign of a much more worrying trend, IMO: lazy parenting and people who want to be nannied by their respective governments, with legislation, etc.

    A little more of a laissez-faire attitude towards this might help. These kind of problems can only really be solved by people facing their responsibilities and getting their shit together, rather than whining to useless politicians who will pass some benign legislation to 'deal with the problem'.

    E.g: ASBOs. If people maybe raised their kids with a little more strictness and others were more active in their local community, it could help to deal with anti-social behaviour directly.

    /apologies for the ASBO derail.
  • otto #53 2 years ago

    The State Opera House is not the city's grand attraction; the Staatsgalerie is. :p

    Well, actually, this Maultaschen restaurant on Hirschstraße is but that's my secret. ;p
    Edited by 1 at 04/11/09 @ 15:18
  • oktava #54 2 years ago

    Gamers who don't see a problem at all are as bad as the ones who try to ban everything.

    I think being a kid nowadays is a lot harder than 10 or even 30 years ago. I had Wolf 3D and Daddys small porn collection. Nowadays they got Manhunt and 2Girls1Cup.
  • mouse Verified Graphic designer, Eurogamer Network #55 2 years ago

    I see the splatting is getting some love, which is nice. If I could do it again, I'd probably go full on with some wet-floor puddle of blood effect underneath the pad there. Benefit of hindsight I suppose. I'll take commissions though, if you require any pictures of loved ones or household pets splattering.
    Edited by 1 at 04/11/09 @ 15:26
  • nuanimal #56 2 years ago


    Ok... I get a sense of the cart being put before the horse. And yes this is going to be a sarcy controversial comment especially since I'm not talking about the effects of games...

    But why aren't the bloody guns banned!? Sorry I don't meant "restricted" - I mean sodding banned.

    Guns are a weapon and were made to make it easier to kill living things. If someone is going to have the capacity to go out and kill, then by making them having to use not-so-lethal weapons would reduce the risk and damage done by them!?

    And as horrible as it to say after the Dublaine tragedy in the UK, guns got banned. Gun crime went down. And knife crime has been increasing!?

  • CaptainBinky #57 2 years ago

    A friend of mine showed an adventure game (old LucasArts style) to his younger brother, a few years ago. He took one look and said in all seriousness, "how do I shoot?". He couldn't quite wrap his head around the concept of a game where the objective was to SOLVE your way out of a crisis - he kept asking "how do I kill him? Can I shoot him?" as if that was the answer to everything.

    Just one kid, I know. But kind of sad none-the-less.
    Edited by 1 at 04/11/09 @ 15:37
  • sarcasmoidosis #58 2 years ago

    "Tim Kretschmer was the son of a marksman who kept 15 weapons and 4500 bullets of live ammunition in the family home. The gun that was used in the shootings was held in his parent's bedroom, rather than locked up in a safe"

    Yeah, Far Cry was the problem... I'm not saying that there isn't a discussion to be had, but direct banning and binning of games is not a discussion, it's a course of action. One with which I disagree.

    Not being a German, I shouldn't care. BUT it's a matter of principle for one. And my XBOX Live IP (my country doesn't have Live Support) goes through Germany, so no "banned" content for me. Such as Gears or Gaiden.
  • JensonJet #59 2 years ago

    "A more prevalent argument is, for example, that games can teach a behavioural pattern."

    I wonder what game the Nazis played to learn their violent behaviour? I guess Germany will continually to live in the shadow of the past. And they say we should remember history. Hmm, and what exactly does that do? By remembering and learning, have we eradicated war? Of course not. Far from it, we've actually perfected ways of maiming and killing, and can do it more efficiently than ever. I love how a game maker's work is scrutinised, but the work of a weapons designer or manufacturer is fair play! There's nothing to learn from history other than violence is and always will play a massive part of what humanity is about. If anyone's old enough to have grown up as a teenager in the mid eighties, this exact same argument was directed at movies.

    The whole idea that this needs debate is in itself ridiculous. I'm more concerned about a young man that wants to join the forces, especially because he's interested in being taught how to use weapons.

    If there's one thing that makes me feel violent, and it's not games.. it's fucking ex-public schoolboy politicians trying to justify their life, job and wage packet by attempting to 'make a difference' but geniunely have no clue as to how or why people act the way they do. Anyone who's influenced by a videogame to commit violence is not normal. These kind of people have always will existed. If a finger of blame is required, lets start with parents, teachers, local authorities – all have access to the lives of the young, and it's their responsibility to the public to flag up problem children... or maybe it's just easy to blame games. Fuck this discussion it geniunely makes me more angry than games ever have.

    By the way, excellent article.
  • kangarootoo #60 2 years ago

    "And they say we should remember history. Hmm, and what exactly does that do? By remembering and learning, have we eradicated war? Of course not."

    Well, the implication there is that we have indeed learned, when clearly we have not.



    "If there's one thing that makes me feel violent, and it's not games.. it's fucking ex-public schoolboy politicians trying to justify their life, job and wage packet by attempting to 'make a difference' but geniunely have no clue as to how or why people act the way they do. Anyone who's influenced by a videogame to commit violence is not normal. These kind of people have always will existed. If a finger of blame is required, lets start with parents, teachers, local authorities – all have access to the lives of the young, and it's their responsibility to the public to flag up problem children... or maybe it's just easy to blame games. Fuck this discussion it geniunely makes me more angry than games ever have."

    Hmmm, I agree. This discussion has made you very angry.
  • Gecks #61 2 years ago

    news just in: eurogamer readers are not clinical psychologists.
  • Johnsters #62 2 years ago

    I personally think video games and movies to some extent have become over violent for violence sake.
    Manhunt/SAW/Hostel seem to target a rather vicious side of violence. I can live without it. Violence to aid realism, I'm generally ok with. I would hate to think what the creative team salivate over when they devise the next blood spurt.
    ( I can't imagine they are nice people to be around - arty types my arse)

    I think most of this forum are in a stable state of mind to understand that the acts they witness would best to be avoided in the real world, unfortunately it only takes one troubled soul to move beyond the boundary of acceptable behavior and act out on what they witnessed. The fact he had access to a gun may only increase the ease/likelihood of his/her actions.

    If anything, books could fall into this topic as even though they're not visual, the imagination can concoct a myriad of detail from the text.
  • agparrot #63 2 years ago

    @Gecks "news just in: eurogamer readers are not clinical psychologists. "

    Yes, but many of us do keep up to date with developments in the violence-and-games discussion, some of us even going so far as to read things like the Byron report, and to make sure Ed Vaizey is still fighting the good fight, and that sort of thing. I'm not sure if the direction of your comment is that we would all understand the issue better if we were clinical psychologists?

    Presumably you are one, and are about to shed some light on the issue?
  • guernican #64 2 years ago

    "The whole idea that this needs debate is in itself ridiculous." Yup. Because nothing was ever solved by talking about it.

    "I wonder what game the Nazis played to learn their violent behaviour?" You sound like a Sun leader writer.

    "Anyone who's influenced by a videogame to commit violence is not normal." Again, labelling a group of people without trying to understand them may be something that tabloid newspapers do very well, but it's not necessarily a constructive way to engage with the issue.

    "fucking ex-public schoolboy politicians trying to justify their life, job and wage packet by attempting to 'make a difference'" as opposed to fucking ex-public schoolboy politicians not trying to make a difference?

    Get off your fucking soapbox. You don't sound world-weary and informed. You sound like an arsehole.
  • atarianer #65 2 years ago

    Thanks Simon

    This article shows me that even outside of Germany, our strange behavior regarding violent games is seen and questioned.
    It is not easy to be a "Killerspielspieler" in Germany and only time can tell when this is going to change.
  • Les #66 2 years ago

    "The effects and dangers of violent videogames should be fully discussed, debated, tested and continually checked.[...] Hardy Schober's anguish may be misplaced and his tabloid-friendly skip stunt deserving of mockery. But more than that, he deserves a conversation. If gamers cannot afford him that, then in some ways, they really are to blame."

    Very true. The effects of video games on violent behaviour need to be properly studied to have a proper debate. And even that isn't a guarantee to success. There will always be people that are too stupid to think. The best you can do is not become one of them...
  • DrStrangelove #67 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    I didn't want to underpin my statement with that comment. It was just meant as some sort of introduction. What I meant, was more like "Although I do enjoy ultra-violent games, I want to say this and that". Sorry for using mistakable words.
    Edited by 1 at 04/11/09 @ 16:48
  • kangarootoo #68 2 years ago

    @DrStrangelove

    Wow. Thats a very diplomatic response. Now I just feel mean.

    I absolutely support you voicing your thoughts on the subject, and I hope I didn't discourage it. I just get picky about making a distinction between known fact and (perfectly reasonable) supposition.

    Supposition is cool, it is what puts a question in the air for everyone to discuss. And its far better than everyone just agreeing what they know, and never investigating what they don't know.

    Hope I didn't come across as too much of an arse (a constant risk with me, as it seems to be my default setting sometimes, hope everyone takes it with a pinch of salt).
  • Gecks #69 2 years ago

    @agparrot
    it was a glib comment in response to glib comments in here implying that violent videogames could never have a negative psychological effect. note: that effect doesn't necessarily manifest itself in people becoming violent themselves.

    it's these people i see in game buying GTA for their 9 year olds. yeah, they probably won't turn into a cold-hearted killer, but what good can come of it? this issue needs study away from the extremes and loaded hypotheses.
  • agparrot #70 2 years ago

    @Gecks -.....it's these people i see in game buying GTA for their 9 year olds. yeah, they probably won't turn into a cold-hearted killer, but what good can come of it? this issue needs study away from the extremes and loaded hypotheses.

    Amen to that. I interpreted your comment in the other way - that clinical psychology had already decided one way or the other, my apologies.
  • smelly #71 2 years ago

    (in hurry - i could rant about this for ages.. but here's a quick brain dump)

    If i tried to release a pornographic video game in this country - most of you guys would be up in arms.

    But yet you have no issues at all with violence?

    It's okay for you to play a game where you go up to someone and chainsaw their legs off, or blow their brains out with a shot gun.. But to rape them - that's seen as disgusting.

    ... And of course rape is disgusting.. so is virtual murder.

    Games dont NEED to be viollent, and they sure as hell shouldnt be. The only people who lust after violent games are teenagers trying desperately to be "mature" - and by reading their posts on the forums the games industry would probably be better off without that market.

    If you released a game in germany with mario and luigi double teaming the princess - no one would bat an eyelid. But violent games are frowned upon. In England and the states, the exact opposite is true.

    I hope that my kids will grow up and have sex sometime in their lives, i certainly hope however that they wont be going around killing or maming people. So which is more harmful for the kids to see?

    Personally i think germany has it the right way around.

    At the end of the day - if games werent allowed to soley focus on violence.. then gamers would start to see how boring a lot of the games they're playing actually are... Subsequently developers would have to focus on *shock* gameplay to sell a product - which imho would only be good for the industry (and gamers) in general.
  • Felwyn #72 2 years ago

    Games kill, is that right. Ok, well lets see about that *takes game puts it on table* Ok game: Kill. Go ahead kill someone, don't be shy. See? Games don't kill people - People kill people! Games just defend people against people with smaller games.

    http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=V_X7nvnK5MI
    Edited by 1 at 04/11/09 @ 17:35
  • Mooglepies #73 2 years ago

    A well balanced article that's actually inclusive of the 'Euro' part of Eurogamer? good job.

    There needs to be serious discussion on this; as usual those arguing at both extremes are just making it harder for everyone else.
  • TRUTH #74 2 years ago

    Why do these things always happen in the West esp USA - is to much freedom for human rights and to have guns, drugs, alcohol and loneliness - with no respect for others, or the environment around you ???...Hardly happens in Japan, it may be something with discipline and order !?!??
    Edited by 1 at 04/11/09 @ 21:40
  • hahayou #75 2 years ago

    You know what causes school shootings? Schools.

    When was the last time I was in a fight? School.
    When was the last time people got bullied? School.
    When was the last time I saw someone pull a knife? School.
    When was the last time someone put bricks through every window of the building they worked in? School...

    There's a genuine problem with the pressure-cooker mini-societies that form in schools.
    However, we can't reactionarily ban education like we could video games, and no-one is enthusiastic about engaging with complex and difficult problems, so we try for quick fixes.

    (Most of this was before Wolfenstein 3D, btw.)
  • Niall #76 2 years ago

    I know it says Simon Parkin, but I'll bet it was really Peter O'Hanrahanrahan.

    "TRENTE PERCENTRE"
  • K3NS31 #77 2 years ago

    OK, 2 things:
    1. STOP bloody lumping all (violent) games together. This is our fault as gamers as well as everyone else's. More ours, in fact, as we should know better. It's like saying all violent movies or all violent books are bad / cause bad behaviour, or don't, or whatever.
    Each game has it's own merits or problems, as with any form of "entertainment", be it TV shows, movies etc. For example, I have no problem blowing people away in MW2, but I won't touch Manhunt. I'll play GTA, but it disturbs me somewhat. These are personal opinions, sure. But how do you quantify the issue? Is Halo bad? You only kill aliens, after all. Not like Manhunt or GTA. Is it right to lump all games together, or should we look at the deeper meaning of each individual game?

    Secondly, as has been said before, if you don't like violent games, how can u allow violent TV shows, movies and books?
    What about the bible, FFS? That's as violent as they come. In fact, there've been more studies showing links between serial killers and the bible in America than there have showing links between school killers and games (a number which is currently zero, IIRC)
  • espy #78 2 years ago

    Thanks for a good article. Well done!
  • arty #79 2 years ago

    How many of you that keep going on about bad parenting actually have kids?
  • Rodchenko #80 2 years ago

    Good article.

    I got addicted to Tetris and felt strangely compelled to batter everyone to death by dropping T shaped blue blocks from my 6th floor window;

    Actually more relevant to the topic as you might have intended.

    McLuhan said the 'medium is the message' (or the rather the 'massage', as he called it). That is, it's not the 'content' of a media that affects our behavior and actions, but the medium itself. IOW (and somewhat simplified), it doesn't make much difference for your nervous system and it's actions whether you shoot zombies in the face or -- as in the above example -- play Tetris. In both cases the modus operandi of the medium (and not the content) transforms you into a state of heightened nervous activity (button-mashing, tunnel-vision, adrenalin-rush, autism-like behavior), which can indeed lead to acts of violence. In 99.9999% of the cases the only one suffering from an eventual outburst is your controller or keyboard, but when additional factors come in (free access to weapons, careless parents) it can create a potentially (albeit very rare) deadly mix.

    Imo, that's the thing which neither opposing party really understands: the politicians focus entirely on the 'content' of a videogame without ever considering the 'rules' of the medium and how the latter is what defines our behavior. And those who say 'Don't blame games, blame people' seem to really think, that everything is entirely a matter of free choice. But as the saying goes: if you hold a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.
  • Les #81 2 years ago

    "that everything is entirely a matter of free choice."

    Which is a nice philosophical abstraction but not something that actually exists. But as life would get a bit complicated if we acknowledged it, we pretend we don't know better.
  • Zamn10210 #82 2 years ago

    "Viva le Resistance"

    Garbled your languages a bit there.
    vive le résistance - french
    viva la revolución - spanish
  • VMerken #83 2 years ago

    They kill or they kill not, that is the question.

    Edit: Ooh, -1. Looks like someone knows the answer.
    Edited by 2 at 07/11/09 @ 21:15
  • chicknstu #84 2 years ago

    People who play videogames : Millions upon Millions

    People who carry out high school shootings : 1, maybe 2 a year

    If we're talking about banning things if they make just one or two people do bad things, let's start the ball rolling on a ban on religion.
    Edited by 3 at 04/11/09 @ 20:41
  • DrStrangelove #85 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    No problem, I can see the ambivalence in my statement, and your criticism is justified. I would have said the same, I guess. You have been correct and objective, I always appreciate that. I have a tendency to express myself mistakably (in German or English, doesn't matter). You seem to be interested in an objective discussion, and that's what I want too. I am not offended.
  • CaptainBinky #86 2 years ago

    :o) GAH the old "people without children are not allowed opinions on parenting" clause again. Flipping heck I hate that. People are allowed to form opinions based on what they observe, you know.
    Edited by 1 at 04/11/09 @ 21:11
  • Emmit_Assassin #87 2 years ago

    First off, awesome article and the reason I read everything on this site.

    Second, I'm a 30 year old gamer in it from the beginning (anyone remember Dizzy on the Amstrad CPC464?) with two kids, one is 4 the other is one years old. My four year old can play games, he's regularly on my 360 playing any kids game demo I can get for him. He can play pretty well, too. Well enough for me to realise that he would 'get' the violence in most games. I feel it would desensitise him to the point where he would hear about one of our boys in Afghanistan being K.I.A and think nothing of it where he to have a few days on the likes of GTA4.
    So therefore I think that children should be protected from violent games.

    But only to the same extent I would say to protect children from the 'Saw' films. (And not just because they're shite.)

    But this is why we have age ratings; to give parents the information they need to be able to protect their children. As, after all, isnt it them/us doing the protecting?

    The only reason, therefore, that a child could be influenced/desensitised by games is because their parents have let them view/play them? I don't let my son play anything violent. I'm a gamer though, so I know what is or isn't playable for a 4 year old.
    What about the parents that aren't gamers? THE AGE RATINGS! I would scream were I able to.
    I read an article in a paper once about a dad who took a second hand copy of GTA4 back to a well known Games retailer complaining that he'd found a wrap inside it. 'I bought this for my son! What do you think a 10 year old would do with this?' He screamed.
    NEVER MIND THAT, WHAT WAS YOUR 10 YEAR OLD SON DOING PLAYING AN 18 RATED GAME?!!!!!!! I would have screamed back had I been the one behind the counter.

    At the point of creation, the developers have responsibility for the content of the game, but they don't supply the game, so they are not to blame. They make a violent game knowing it will get an 18 rating.
    The publishers do supply the game, but they make it clear the game has an 18 rating.
    The shops sell the game with an 18 rating, but they do this to adults only, knowing it is against the law to supply a minor.
    The adults buy the game, fully able to check an age rating on the front cover. If their child wanted a film, they would check the age rating, no?

    My point? Parents are the one's responsible, they should take an interest in what their children are doing. Everyone else in the
    chain of supply takes whatever steps necessary in order to give parents the information they need to make an informed decision. Adults are legally able to buy and play these games, children and minors are not. Adults can make their own decisions about this, minors cannot.

    IF THERE IS BLAME NEEDED - BLAME THE PARENTS.
    Edited by 1 at 05/11/09 @ 00:47
  • kangarootoo #88 2 years ago

    @smelly

    "I hope that my kids will grow up and have sex sometime in their lives, i certainly hope however that they wont be going around killing or maming people. So which is more harmful for the kids to see?"

    I'm not sure where you are going with that. You talk about what you would like your future children to do and not do, but then leap from there to "which is more harmful foer them to see?". What has one got to do with the other? Your every changing hopes for your children no more affect human psychology than they affect gravity.

    The true answer MIGHT be "they are equally harmful for them to see, in the sense that neither is harmful at all". What you would LIKE your kids to do is irrelevant. The harm caused or lackthereof is a matter of science, your preference as a future parent is not. If you felt differently about sex and violence, would it change whether viewing sex and/or violence in video games is harmful? Of course not.

    You are yet another person confusing subjective taste with factual effect. They are simply not connected.
  • kangarootoo #89 2 years ago

    @Emmit_Assassin

    Good post, good attitude.

    The issue of desensitizing kids to violence via video games (or films, etc) is an interesting one. Its hard to know what effect it has on the future actions of said child. If a kid is desensitized to visual violence, will it make them more likely to carry out violence themselves?

    I know that in the case referenced in the article, we can all agree the kid in question was "bonkers" (to put it mildly). But where does normal end and bonkers begin? I personally don't believe that people are either sane or broken, I think the mind is too complex to behave in such a basic way.


    Also, on a tangent, I kind of feel that the father in question just wants to understand and fix and protect. To want to understand is a pretty natural human need that raises its head in lots of ways. I don't think he wants to blame video games out of malice, I think he wants to blame them because doing so simplifies the problem to the degree that it can be identified and perhaps fixed.

    There must be little more harrowing for a parent that has lost a child to be told "we don't really understand why this happened, and consequently there is nothing we can really do to stop it happening again".


    I realise that access to guns is a factor in the referenced case, but whilst I agree with the principle it still feels like a "sticking plaster" to me. What is safer, a sane person who doesn't want the gun that is in front of them, or a psychotic person tirelessly struggling to find one? Denying easy access to gun is a practical step and a good idea, but its not a complete solution.
    Edited by 1 at 04/11/09 @ 22:41
  • Genji #90 2 years ago

    Me, I think games should be more violent, just to stick it to those Germans.

    Let's kill some babies, AWWWW YEAAAAH.

    Seriously though, if I have kids, they are *not* going to touch violent games until they're at least 16.
  • oktava #91 2 years ago

    good parenting is one side. the availability and easier than ever access to all kinds of degenerated shit is another. but that goes too far since this discussion is about video games.
  • Quixz #92 2 years ago

    A good read, hopefully this never happens in the UK.
  • Emmit_Assassin #93 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    Thanks. I don't think that desensitized kids would be more likely to commit any kind of violence. I think that's all down to a number of other factors. What I think it does do however, is make children a little less aware of the severity of some kinds of violence. They will think it's not exactly acceptable, but that it doesn't warrant any or a varying amount of worry over certain events. Like the example I used of the soldiers in Afghanistan.
    My son would, for example, think little of giving his brother a good kick if he'd taken his favourite toy, whereas without the desensitization, I think he would perhaps think a little more about the method he'd use. Although again, this would also be affected by the parental influence, and not just down to any exposure to violent games or other media.
    The other point I think is important in all this is the fact that politicians love to hate violent games. It does indeed give them a platform to spout their usual claptrap which they think the public want to hear. I can see why the problem is more prevalent in Germany, where the exposure controls are more strict than over here. But politicians are the same the world over, and they will always be looking for the next thing that they can 'take a stand on' to get themselves into power. In the 80's it was 'video nasties'. Nowadays its violent video games.
    A ban will never happen in any European country under any circumstances. It would be censorship, however any politician decides to disguise it. We all deserve the freedom to make our own decision as to whether to expose ourselves or our children to any media or influence. So long as the people that need to continue to attempt to inform parents on what their children may be subjected to, then all will be fine.
    I hope...
  • Les #94 2 years ago

    "My point? Parents are the one's responsible, they should take an interest in what their children are doing."

    You're grossly exaggerating the effects parents have on the behaviour of their children (at least I think you don't mean through genetic relation). You're in good company but blaming the parents is about as stupid as blaming games without further proper research.
  • Trikk #95 2 years ago

    You'd think the Germans would have learned the dangers of limiting freedom of speech by now, but they seem doomed to keep repeating history.

    Democracy sucks amirite?
  • Emmit_Assassin #96 2 years ago

    @Les
    Whilst I'm not saying parents are 100% responsible for their child's learnt behaviour, as I never said that, they are 100% responsible for what their children do with their games machines, which is the whole point of my post.
    So yes, they are responsible.
    And blaming parents doesn't need research, its common sense. There are a million and one other factors involved in why children go on to commit these types of crime, but since the whole point, again, of my post was airing my view on violent video games and their influence on children, parents are 100% responsible for their children viewing inappropriate games/media.
    Please could you read posts carefully before commenting. Thanks.
  • robg #97 2 years ago

    This is a great article, predictably assaulted by repeated comments from gamers with the same straw-man arguments the article so insightfully derided.
  • kangarootoo #98 2 years ago

    @Emmit_Assassin

    I agree that politicians like to use games as an easy target. I think their surface reason for doing so is the same as the father in the article - because it makes the problem appear simple and fixable. But I think their motivation is rather more hollow (I am generalising of course, some politicians do genuinely care about doing The Right Thing, but its hard to imagine they are a majority).
  • Kluff #99 2 years ago

    Hm.
    What's a violent video game? Should we take the graphical depictions into account while weighing a game as violent or the psychological effects, the emotional response by the gamer?
    Quake 3, Team Fortress 2 and UT2004 for example feature all blood and gore, but I wouldn be concerned if a 12 year old played these games. From my experience, I didn't find them more brutal than a real match of badminton. That's how my head responds to these games. And that's what counts, right? Not the superficial looks.
    Edited by 1 at 05/11/09 @ 10:12
  • Johnsters #100 2 years ago

    @Kluff
    I guess as I said in an earlier post, it's the tone of the violence that I think can leave a bitter taste in the mouth. Q3,TF2 and UT are very cartoonish in their approach (brightly coloured or not). GTA and Manhunt went for realism and a bitter tone. All a bit nasty really. How many times did the Coyote slam/burn/crash when pitted against the roadrunner? And we laughed.

    Badminton can be brutal :-)

  • Les #101 2 years ago

    "parents are 100% responsible for their children viewing inappropriate games/media."

    I agree that parents are accountable (better term than responsible but I guess that's what you mean) for what their children do but it is important to realize that it is just a legal construct. Parents are 100% accountable but they can't control/influence their children 100%. But that's what matters to address the problem, not some legal fiction.
  • GreyBeard #102 2 years ago

    The bitter irony at the heart of all these censorship/proscription debates is that if you argue that a fictional depiction can teach negative behavioural patterns, you need to accept that factual coverage can have the same effect.

    Now you can "protect" these individuals from harmful fictions, but what about real life? What about news reports in print and on Tv? You want atrocious stories of crime and violence, you want to see the rule of law defeated, look no further.

    How do you prevent school shootings? Most psychologists would state categorically that a good step is never to give spree killings the kind of inflated media coverage they tend to get. As the kind of notoriety the killers get in these cases plays directly to the desires of the damaged personalities who would plan and execute them.

    The tragedy for me is that when concerned and grieving parents make a stand like this, the real issues are not being addressed, and even worse they may be inadvertently sowing the seeds of a future atrocity and propogating the cycle of violence.

  • ardamillo #103 2 years ago

    Well played EG and Simon Parkin.
  • Emmit_Assassin #104 2 years ago

    @Les
    I agree with you on that, it is a much better word to be used. Whilst parents can't be everywhere at once and at ever time their children are subjected to what we would describe as unsuitable media, they are indeed accountable.
    As for the politicians, I'd say 99% of them are out for themselves, and couldn't care less about the industry. There are some who wish to help the industry, as has been documented on this site. But my view will always be a little bias because of the nature of our own media. 'We only hear what they want us to hear' and all that. There may well be many unsung heroes in politics who fight for the games industry. (Stop laughing!)
    I also agree with the comments about why the game industry is targeted. I think its totally appropriate for an angry father/mother or relative to lash out at something if it helps them to come to terms with their loss and make sense of it all.
    Its just that when that anger turns into hatred and misunderstanding that things start to get serious.
    Therefore I always take all these politicians and relatives who shout about banning violent games with a pinch of salt. As do most German gamers, given the amount of games in the bin.
    Its healthy for us all to have different opinions, air our worries and to fight for whatever we believe in, and arguments and discussion will always play a major part in everyone's life, no matter what the subject. Without wishing to sound like an advert, 'Its good to talk.'
  • Emmit_Assassin #105 2 years ago

    @GreyBeard ...Well said, and an extremely valid point.

    Most parents wrap their children in cotton wool and attempt to shield them from all illness, and end up weakening their immune systems. I grew up having every illness and had to cope with it all without medication. My parents had the view that if I fought it myself, then I'd have a better immune system for it.
    And they were 100% right. I have an extremely good immune system now, which can be very annoying as I never get a day off work for sickness.
    The same can be said about daily life. There is so much violence and hardship in the world, children will be subjected to it whatever we do. Even without violent games. So what would happen if we protect our children form EVERYTHING? There will come a day when they leave the nest and can't cope with life.
    I'm not saying we should let children play GTA4 to help them cope with life, obviously.
    I think I understand what I just said...
  • mukki #106 2 years ago

    great article!

    German gaming laws have been something that have left me perplexed and annoyed since I have moved here
  • KDR_11k #107 2 years ago

    That retailer protest seems to be limited to Kaufhof and I've been ignoring that store for a while already, it's WAY overpriced, the selection sucks and pricedrops are never obeyed. If you want PS2 launch games at full price that's your ticket but you get a MUCH better selection and pricing even at Karstadt.

    Anyway, if they want to get rid of killing sprees they need to help the people who are in danger of committing them by bringing in psychiatrists and whatnot, oppressing them with a law and treating them as criminals won't make them stop hating others. Banning games has nothing to do with it because other countries don't have much trouble with killing sprees even without rigorous game controls.

    Also

    "Next we have games that are deemed able to endanger the growth of children. These are denied an age rating and, in most cases, indexed by the Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons (BPjM). Games without a rating may not be advertised, reviewed, or displayed openly in shops. However, it is entirely legal to publish them, to sell them and to buy them in Germany, usually from under the counter."

    This is wrong, unrated games are like 18+ games unless indexed, only with the indexing it becomes illegal to advertise them (and any restrictions only apply in areas where minors can see them, you can put them on the shelves in an 18+ video rental place without issues because minors won't even enter the room).
  • feistycheese #108 2 years ago

    Games dont kill people, rabbits do!

    On a serious note perhaps the fact that a teenager can go in and grab his Dads licensed shotgun from the cabinet may have something to do with it. Its just a blame thing for the German government, they need something to pin this on so instead of looking into the possible psychological issues if the individual, it becomes a social problem, with violent videogames the thing that pushed the kid over the edge.

    I lived in Germany for 4 years while I did my bit for Queen and Country, and to be honest this stinks of hypocrisy. I can go into multitudes of German back street video stores and buy DVDs involving scantily clad females cavorting with various super endowed farm animals, but Im pretty sure theres no widespread problem of bestiality in Germany.

    My brother in law is still over there, and as far as I am aware him and all his German mates buy their games from the UK or Austria anyway, as theres been a general dumbing down of shooting games in Germany for years now anyway.
  • Kluff #109 2 years ago

    Jep, I do the same. UK and Austria are good places to buy games from.
    I'm also annoyed by the draconian laws we have which are totally counter-productive.
    Also, I find the age rating system rather irrational.
  • spammage #110 2 years ago

    I blame Tim Langdell.............
  • zecker #111 2 years ago

    how all this *killerspiele* discussions always pop up almost the same day or a day before someone runs amok.. :o
  • TheRook21 #112 2 years ago

    @Emmit Assassin

    "My son would, for example, think little of giving his brother a good kick if he'd taken his favourite toy, whereas without the desensitization, I think he would perhaps think a little more about the method he'd use. Although again, this would also be affected by the parental influence, and not just down to any exposure to violent games or other media."

    Interesting you use such an example as something that I think has been 'missed' so far is instinct.

    My son is almost 2 and he has taken to hitting when he gets annoyed or upset about something, neither my wife or myself have hit him or each other, he doesnt go to nursery and when he is around other kids he hasn't seen that happen, but it is a natural instinct for people to lash out at something if they are upset or annoyed about it.

    Some people do it differently than others - if people can get across their 'arguement' using words and talking about it they will be the simple frustration when they aren't able to articulate what they want to so they choose to lash out physically and this is part of our 'animalistic nature' in my opinion. Lest we forget that we are actually animals as 'advanced' as we believe we are we still have primal urges and instincts.

    But as the point you mentioned that could be down to violent games/movies and desensitization brought on by those but also kids films/stories also contain violence and scenes to invoke fear and hatred against 'the baddies'.

    All forms of 'entertainment' contain violence in some form or another even those 'suitable for kids' - a good example is a 'bed time story' which is read on Nick Jr and then a cartoon is animated along with the story.

    The story goes on about a single parent (mother) family who doesnt have any money with 7 kids so the kids go to the castle to try and get some money/food. The king wont give them anything but says if you can get a blanket off this 'evil' wolf you can have some food, so off one of the kid goes and gets the blanket and returns, the king sends him out again to get the Parrot that the wolf has, off the kid goes and returns to the king parrot in hand.

    The third time the king sends him to get rid of the wolf entirely, so the little boy tricks him into getting into a coffin and kid seals the wolf in the coffin taking him back to the king, the kings happy and gives the boy a bag of gold and they rush off home with the gold and everything is well...

    except for the poor wolf who will no doubt be killed, after losing the blanket and the parrot...

    But you know the wolf is the 'bad guy' so its ok that horrible things happen to him.


    I might be sympathetic to the 'bad guy' as I've 'killed' many in my years and years of gaming but it doesn't seem to have any morals or anything to teach... e.g. 'two wrongs dont make a right'

    but anyhow I've gone off on a tangent so I'll end my post there after forgetting my point entirely

    TheRook21
    sympathiser for the wolf
  • Emmit_Assassin #113 2 years ago

    @TheRook21
    I agree that there are many other factors in why kids do the things they do, and I also agree that they get fed violence from just about everything they come into contact with. Which makes the argument that games are the problem even more obtuse and pretty much a moot point.
    I have no problem with the story of the wolf, as I said in another post, or might have been the same one, as kids do need to see something of the way the world works.
    I think we do all seem to get a little above our stations in life and forget we are animals, really, and seem to think that violence is something that needs to be eradicated/controlled. It never will be and parents will never take enough interest in what their children are doing in their bedrooms. Online chat rooms can get them killed, GTA4 can warp their sense of realism and make them go out and kill everyone at their school, TV can make them fat and stupid, fast food can kill them or give them diseases, wearing hoodies makes them violent, wearing short skirts can get them raped, drinking once a week can kill them...
    Christ...is there anything kids CAN do these days? Poor sods...
    Fuck the wolf, mate....feel for the kids...
  • Camorrista #114 2 years ago

    The protester kids should probably just have written "Hey guys, I can vote from this year on!" on their signs, and watch all the disgusting, spineless naysaying in the Bundestag go poof.
  • BathiBoi #115 2 years ago

    godd luck for mature gamers we can import our games from the UK. an that evan more cheap than in our home shops ;)