UK Politicians Threatened By Bully

Though its release date is still a ways off Next Generation is reporting that UK politicians are already calling for careful consideration, and possible banning, of the Rockstar title Bully. From the article: "Do you share my concern at the decision of Rockstar to publish a new game called Bully in which players use their on-screen persona to kick and punch other schoolchildren? Will you ask the prime minister to refer this video to the British Board of Film Classification? If they don't make any changes will the government use its powers to ban this video[game]?"

The Jerking of Knees

[Thedalek]

Every time Bully comes up, there's always the instant response of "Oh, that's horrible! A game where you bully kids?!"

So many people seem to be missing the point that this game is about pulling pranks on bullies, not kicking Mortimer Snerd's butt and taking his lunch money. The idea is supposed to be that you get picked on, then you start fighting back on behalf of the little guys.

Re:Wtf?

[Pxtl]

Because the game isn't about being a bully. It's about fighting back. And meeting girls, pranking teachers, etc. Imho, it's the coolest concept ever for a game, and I'm disgusted by people who think "ooh, Rockstar is making a bad game about beating up kids" without even looking into it (or looking at what your kids are going through at school and realising how this game might make them feel better about it).

Re:Wtf?

[RoadDoggFL]

It's a shame that you posted anonymously because you deserve Insightful mods for that.

I can't help but wish politician were smarter because the whole violent game issue has extremely valid points on both sides. I'm a huge supporter of seeing video games as an art form, and at the very least as a vessel for freedom of speech, and in that sense I feel that any developer should be able to make and responsibly market any game to a reasonable market without any legal issues. But at the same time, it's petty for gamers to say that violent games don't make kids violent. Just like football and other competetive (especially contact sports in general), (violent) games can make kids more aggressive and violent themselves. I know this because they've affected me, flat out. I grew up fantasizing that every random place I was going to in real life was a bloody battlefield and was fascinated at the thought of how I would do in the situation of the main characters I play as in war games.

Am I violent? No, despite growing up playing roller hockey (ice hockey players are encouraged to go for more hits so I don't know if I'd be different if I was born in Michigan rather than Florida) competetively and seeing war and violence glorified, I was always able to somewhat keep myself in check and remind myself that games are games and real life is real life. My cousin, on the other hand, between growing up wrestling us (his cousins, older than him by five years) and playing violent games is a serious bully at school, and whenever he sees an ad for a game with guns his instant reaction is "that game looks awesome!"

The point that parents should decide what their kids can and can't handle doesn't refute the fact that there are kids who can be profoundly affected by games that encourage you to kill (I'm not blaming anything for Columbine or anything like that, just wrapping things up). Yes, parents should raise their kids, but what's the difference between banning violent games from kids and banning cigarettes from kids? Both are the parent's responsibility (one is significantly easier to acquire... but you get my point), and both can be harmful. The problem I see right now though, is that it seems they're trying to ban mature games from kids under all circumstances, even if parents think their kids can handle it. I can't say I agree with either or neither side here, but gamers who so adamantly defend games in light of these posts are just as bad as the politicians, imho.