Take-Two says blaming games for violence "sidesteps the real issues"

[Goro]

After Louisiana sheriff's department says Grand Theft Auto IV may have played role in recent shooting, publisher speaks out.

Grand Theft Auto parent publisher Take-Two Interactive spoken out to defend games after a Louisiana sheriff's department said Grand Theft Auto may have played a role in a recent killing.

 

 

Grand Theft Auto parent publisher Take-Two Interactive spoken out to defend games after a Louisiana sheriff's department said Grand Theft Auto may have played a role in a recent killing.

 

"Ascribing a connection to entertainment--a theory that has been disproven repeatedly by multiple independent studies--both minimizes this moment and sidesteps the real issues at hand," Take-Two said in a statement to CNN.

 

The statement came in response to the ongoing investigation into the death of an 87-year-old Louisiana woman, who was shot and killed by an 8-year old, according to authorities.

 

The sheriff's department has not named a motive for the attack, but suggested that the boy's virtual actions inside Grand Theft Auto IV may have poured over in the real world.

 

"Although a motive for the shooting is unknown at this time, investigators have learned that the juvenile suspect was playing a video game on the Play Station III--Grand Theft Auto IV--a realistic game that has been associated with encouraging violence and awards points to players for killing people, just minutes before the homicide occurred," the department said.

 

The boy will not face charges, because under Louisiana law, a child under 10 is exempt from criminal responsibility, according to CNN.

 

In January, president Barack Obama ordered more research to be done to investigate the relationship between video games and real-world violence.

Edited August 26, 2013 by Kazuma

[VetoShizuko]

ugh people are always trying to blame games for something...like seriously don't those cops have donuts to eat or something >.>

[PREDRAG-K]

Why aren't' they asking why an 8 year old was playing a rated M game anyway? Video games seem to be a scapegoat for the media, they don't want to question the parenting or the mental stability of the child, but they'll blame the game.

[AndroidFox]

ugh people are always trying to blame games for something...like seriously don't those cops have donuts to eat or something >.>

 

This comment...

 

[snakebit10]

Why arn't parents parenting their children. That is the real issue. Parents need to pay attention to the ratings on games/movies and music. A 8 year old has no business playing a game like GTA.

 

My 2 cents worth.

[lporiginalg]

Well I`ll say the same thing I said in the other thread even tho no one will pay it any heed. It`s very easy to sit here and blame the parents for letting the child play the game. The fact is you don`t know if they did allow this. You don`t know where the kid got the game. He wasn`t even playing it at home he was playing it at his grandmother`s house.

Did anybody here, when they were younger, watch something, like a movie, or maybe look at a magazine that they knew full well at the time that their parents would not have permitted them to see? Guess you had terrible parents then huh?

Or maybe instead of pointing fingers at people you don't know you should consider the fact that it's impossible to supervise your children 24 hours a day.

Obviously a kid like that shouldn't have access to a loaded gun but we don't know any details about that either so I'll leave it there.

 

Finally I will add that I think Take II is being somewhat disingenous when they say that a link between violence and video games has been disproven multiple times. Proving causation is actually really, really hard and complicated. Because you can't prove something doesn't mean you have disproven it.

[Mr Incredible]

Why arn't parents parenting their children. That is the real issue. Parents need to pay attention to the ratings on games/movies and music. A 8 year old has no business playing a game like GTA.

 

My 2 cents worth.

 

Nor should the 8 year old have open access to a gun with or without ammo.

[JoeTootell]

Gamers are taking this too far and getting so defensive they can't even accept that him playing GTA would off been a factor In it.

Edited August 26, 2013 by joeburkulosis

[Tomato]

Violence existed before there were video games to begin with now is always used as a excuse for something not bad parenting. 

[Bullstomp]

Gamers are taking this too far and getting so defensive they can't even accept that him playing GTA would off been a factor In it.

 

Because its not a factor. This is a parenting issue.

 

1. As was stated earlier, you do not leave firearms where kids can get to them. There is a wonderful invention in recent times called a gun safe. If you have a gun and kids, this should be mandatory.
2. An 8 year old has no business being aware of a game rated MA, let alone playing it.

Fact of the matter is movies are more graphic and realistic in every way. If someone tried to blame something like this on watching "Kick Ass 2" they would be called out immediately. For some reason Video Games are easily demonized, probably since more older people watch movies than play video games.

[JoeTootell]

Because its not a factor. This is a parenting issue.

 

1. As was stated earlier, you do not leave firearms where kids can get to them. There is a wonderful invention in recent times called a gun safe. If you have a gun and kids, this should be mandatory.
2. An 8 year old has no business being aware of a game rated MA, let alone playing it.

Fact of the matter is movies are more graphic and realistic in every way. If someone tried to blame something like this on watching "Kick Ass 2" they would be called out immediately. For some reason Video Games are easily demonized, probably since more older people watch movies than play video games.

How the hell is it not a factor? yes it is parenting issues but the fact of the matter is he was playing the game which obviously influenced his decision. in the end i agree it does boil down to parenting issues. this arguement is like the racism argument its just going to go on and on and on with no solution no outcome and no right or wrong answer.

[lporiginalg]

Because its not a factor. This is a parenting issue.

 

1. As was stated earlier, you do not leave firearms where kids can get to them. There is a wonderful invention in recent times called a gun safe. If you have a gun and kids, this should be mandatory.
2. An 8 year old has no business being aware of a game rated MA, let alone playing it.

Fact of the matter is movies are more graphic and realistic in every way. If someone tried to blame something like this on watching "Kick Ass 2" they would be called out immediately. For some reason Video Games are easily demonized, probably since more older people watch movies than play video games.

 

If the game isn't a factor then why is #2 worth mentioning?

[BSAA_Advisor]

My 2 cents worth.

 

1. The child; as Bullstomp said, should not even be aware of a game like GTA.

2. Parenting is the bigger issue here.

3. Yes, games are more realistic, as are movies (nowadays), doesn't mean it has to be a scapegoat.

 

Fact of the matter, is yes you cannot watch children 24 hours a day (near impossible). Though you can take away those influences, the Grandparent should have known better, correct ? Not necessarily.

 It boils down to that there was no attempt to stop the influence of a Rated M game, so the Grandparent and parent are in a way at fault but not entirely a game.

That is just plain stupid to entirely blame a game, as we don't blame movies or books for this very often, now do we ?

[Parker]

I still see it as a parenting issue. Parents, grandparents and anyone who is going to watch a kid needs to know the maturity level of the kid. An 8 year old playing Grand Theft Auto doesn't necessarily mean that they're bad parents because I know I was playing mature games around that age, but a mentally disturbed 8 year old playing violent games, with access to a loaded firearm just screams bad news to me. 

 

I'd be willing to bet that this kid has shown symptoms of mental instability that more than likely were ignored by whoever takes care of him. Blaming video games makes no sense because if video games truly caused people to be violent or commit crime than everyone on this site would be facing life sentences. Was GTA a factor in this particular case? Maybe, but again that has to do with the kids mental issues and not the video game itself. 

 

 

Parker

[Bullstomp]

How the hell is it not a factor? yes it is parenting issues but the fact of the matter is he was playing the game which obviously influenced his decision. in the end i agree it does boil down to parenting issues. this arguement is like the racism argument its just going to go on and on and on with no solution no outcome and no right or wrong answer.

 

Let's bring the argument to the bare facts. Do you think GTA IV was programmed to be played by 8 year olds? Based on its "M" rating I would have to say no.

 

Do you think the gun was purchased or owned by the child? Based on gun laws and the requirements each state imposes on stores who sell guns I would have to say no.

 

So where is the true failure?

 

So if the game wasn't marketed or sold to an 8 year old and the gun isn't sold or owned by the 8 year old how exactly would Take 2 be liable? I swear people who seek to blame the entertainment media for such tragedies are going to doom us to be limited to Disney games and movies since personal responsibility seems to have no place any longer in modern society.

[acasser]

 

Finally I will add that I think Take II is being somewhat disingenous when they say that a link between violence and video games has been disproven multiple times. Proving causation is actually really, really hard and complicated. Because you can't prove something doesn't mean you have disproven it.

 

I'll agree with the point that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.... but that's about as far as I'll go.

 

It isn't Take Two's job to disprove a link between video games and violence.  It's the job of the sheriff or the prosecutor or the politicians or what-have-you to prove a positive correlation and link between the two.  It is those irresponsible groups that have already gone out there and said things to the extent that "this video game caused this kid to go psycho and kill people".  So how about those groups prove that there's a link instead of asking Take Two to prove there isn't a link?  After all, aren't we in a country that believes in "innocent until proven guilty"?

 

And if there isn't a link, how would you like Take Two to prove that?  You're asking them to prove a negative, which can only be done by disproving every possible positive.  It's an impossible task.... but I imagine that some people would be just as happy to force Take Two to squander their resources trying and go out of business without regard for the consequences.

[JoeTootell]

Let's bring the argument to the bare facts. Do you think GTA IV was programmed to be played by 8 year olds? Based on its "M" rating I would have to say no.

Do you think the gun was purchased or owned by the child? Based on gun laws and the requirements each state imposes on stores who sell guns I would have to say no.

So where is the true failure?

So if the game wasn't marketed or sold to an 8 year old and the gun isn't sold or owned by the 8 year old how exactly would Take 2 be liable? I swear people who seek to blame the entertainment media for such tragedies are going to doom us to be limited to Disney games and movies since personal responsibility seems to have no place any longer in modern society.

Like i said its an argument that won't be settled like racism.

[Death]

Yes lets all push the blame on something else. While we're at it we might as well blame pens for misspelling our words, fast food restaurants for making us fat and coffee shops for burning my balls with their hot coffee. This world is just one giant vagina.

[lporiginalg]

And if there isn't a link, how would you like Take Two to prove that?  You're asking them to prove a negative, which can only be done by disproving every possible positive.  It's an impossible task.... but I imagine that some people would be just as happy to force Take Two to squander their resources trying and go out of business without regard for the consequences.

 

I'm not sure where you getting all this about me blaming Take Two or putting onus on them. It's just like you said, you can't prove a negative.If I try to prove the existence of God, and fail, that doesn't mean you get to go around saying "the existence of God has been disproven." Which is exactly what Take Two did. All I'm asking them to do is approach the topic ingenuously. That's it that's all.

[Bullstomp]

I'm not sure where you getting all this about me blaming Take Two or putting onus on them. It's just like you said, you can't prove a negative.If I try to prove the existence of God, and fail, that doesn't mean you get to go around saying "the existence of God has been disproven." Which is exactly what Take Two did. All I'm asking them to do is approach the topic ingenuously. That's it that's all.

 

So how exactly do you think Take Two should approach this?

[Brawler]

Well I`ll say the same thing I said in the other thread even tho no one will pay it any heed. It`s very easy to sit here and blame the parents for letting the child play the game. The fact is you don`t know if they did allow this. You don`t know where the kid got the game. He wasn`t even playing it at home he was playing it at his grandmother`s house.

Did anybody here, when they were younger, watch something, like a movie, or maybe look at a magazine that they knew full well at the time that their parents would not have permitted them to see? Guess you had terrible parents then huh?

Or maybe instead of pointing fingers at people you don't know you should consider the fact that it's impossible to supervise your children 24 hours a day.

Obviously a kid like that shouldn't have access to a loaded gun but we don't know any details about that either so I'll leave it there.

 

Finally I will add that I think Take II is being somewhat disingenous when they say that a link between violence and video games has been disproven multiple times. Proving causation is actually really, really hard and complicated. Because you can't prove something doesn't mean you have disproven it.

 

I'm willing to back you up in the regard that I agree there can be some correlation between the two, however I'm not a fan of how the articles related to this topic always make it seem like the games drive kids to do such things. There are too many factors as you said for this to be something that can be assessed so quickly. Here's to hoping nothing comes of this~

[BSAA_Advisor]

I'm not sure where you getting all this about me blaming Take Two or putting onus on them. It's just like you said, you can't prove a negative.If I try to prove the existence of God, and fail, that doesn't mean you get to go around saying "the existence of God has been disproven." Which is exactly what Take Two did. All I'm asking them to do is approach the topic ingenuously. That's it that's all.

 

No one blatanly said you were blaming Take-Two here, besides you; as you just did. They are asking how would you want them to approach it, would you like it if this happened to you ? I think not. They are saying what they believe and to ask them to disprove something is a near impossible task. 

 

Now I'm not blaming or defending. But don't ask them to change their stance as they won't. If I asked you to change your stance or opinion would you ?

So how exactly do you think Take Two should approach this?

 

I agree with you on some aspects. I feel Take-Two played their cards to the best they could. But others have opinions and some can be pretty out there but unfortunately in some cases we have to respect those opinions.

Personally, the child may have had some form of mental instability; as Parker said.

 

Others believe that parenting is not at fault, others believe gaming (politics, law enforcement, etc.). No Take-Two did not disprove anything but they can't waste resources either. They did what they did and people have to acknowledge that.

 

If they fail to notice what you, just don't bother arguing with them...you'll end up wasting time on a mindless thing (not a slam at anything, so you know).

[lporiginalg]

So how exactly do you think Take Two should approach this?

 

They don't have to do anything. But if they do choose to comment about it (which they did) then they should choose their words more carefully. My complaint really comes down to the subtle difference between saying "has been disproven" vs "has not been proven conclusively". It might seem like I'm being anal but these are important differences to the scientifically minded.

[Bullstomp]

They don't have to do anything. But if they do choose to comment about it (which they did) then they should choose their words more carefully. My complaint really comes down to the subtle difference between saying "has been disproven" vs "has not been proven conclusively". It might seem like I'm being anal but these are important differences to the scientifically minded.

 

I think its all in the interpretation, honestly. Here is Take 2's quote -

 

"Ascribing a connection to entertainment--a theory that has been disproven repeatedly by multiple independent studies--both minimizes this moment and sidesteps the real issues at hand," Take-Two said in a statement to CNN.

 

Personally, I agree with the statement completely. The issue isn't that GTAIV is a violent game, no one would argue that it isn't. The real issue is how a 8 year old kid got a loaded gun. And no, just as I wouldn't blame Smith and Wesson for making the gun and the ammunition I wouldn't blame Take 2 for making a violent game that the kid shouldn't have seen in the first place.

[lporiginalg]

I'm willing to back you up in the regard that I agree there can be some correlation between the two, however I'm not a fan of how the articles related to this topic always make it seem like the games drive kids to do such things. There are too many factors as you said for this to be something that can be assessed so quickly. Here's to hoping nothing comes of this~

 

Well I agree the media, whether corporate or indy, is really mostly a bunch of shameless attention whores who only care about page views rather than balanced journalism. That's why in the original story that was posted here you see:

 

"Sheriff's deputies have not revealed a motive but they pointed out the child was playing the video game before the fatal shooting." with the headline: "Boy, 8, kills gran after playing video game".

Now on the one hand, this is all factually correct. No one here is blatantly blaming the game. They are simply stating facts and leaving people to draw their own conclusions. But sure they know exactly what the hell they are doing and that this is a polarizing hot topic issue which is why the headline makes mention of the video game aspect.

 

Having said all that, would it be better if they didn't mention the game at all? See, when a tragic event like this takes place I always want to see something good come out of it. In this case it can be raised awareness for parents about monitoring their children's video game consumption, not to mention gun safety. Sure us gamers know all about parental control and m rated games and what have you, but there's plenty of people out there who maybe aren't aware that this is an issue which should actually be taken seriously. If the story raises awareness then that's not such a bad thing.

Take Two would have gotten more repsect from me if they approached it from that standpoint. If they pointed out that their game is not meant for eight year old children and parents should pay attention to what their kids are playing, this would be a much more practical approach than to simply make statements that are not only defensive but scientifically inaccurate.

 

Now I'm not blaming or defending. But don't ask them to change their stance as they won't. If I asked you to change your stance or opinion would you ?

 

The idea of changing stances on a statement that is factually and scientifically inaccurate is irrelevant. You can take the stance that the world is flat and hold your ground as much as you want, but you will always be wrong, period.

Edited August 26, 2013 by lporiginalg