Bully - The Game

[DaisyProudfoot]

Have a look at the link to this news article and tell me what you think.

 

It's an interesting idea - beating the bullies - but I don't see how popularising school violence could be a good thing

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6046932.stm

[loulou]

Hi,

 

I agree that this game shouldn't be given to a 5 year old, but loads of kids get hold of games that are too old for them. I wouldn't let my children play this regardless of age. It sounds horrible.

 

Loulou x

[barefoot wend]

What next? 'Happy Slapping' the boardgame?

[Karen A]

Of course this game will get into the hands of children that are too young or for whom it is unsuitable.I have to keep a close eye on my boys.Regards Karen

[Jericho]

So everyone over the age of 15 knows that hitting someone with a baseball bat can cause a serious head injury??? Not if the news is anything to go by.

 

 

I'm not usually this pedantic but (quote) "..when Elvis shaked his hips"??

Edited October 13, 2006 by Jericho

[butterfingersbimbo]

grrrrrr.......

[Lucas]

Oh gawds, of course as a big games player myself I have to say my piece.

 

I am tired, really tired, when there is some irresponsible parent that buys an 18 certificate game, with the big fat '18' getting larger on the front of boxes every year, the game and the game developer is blamed and by proxy people who play games are attacked. Bully doesn't even have an 18 certificate.

 

I think it would be best if people knew a little bit more about the Florida lawyer Jack Thompson too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_%28attorney%29

 

When people say games cause people to have warped and distorted views that allow them to commit horrible acts, they are saying people who play games have warped and distorted views that allow them to commit horrible acts.

 

Children used to play cowboys and indians all the time before many schools banned it because it was supposedly racist(though at my school no one had any objection to the black and asian kids wanting to be cowboys and no one ever thought for a moment that they should be the indians because of their colour), I've never heard of a case where that pretend violence has made a young person show up to school with a weapon and kill people. Computer games are not much different and often their violent content is exaggerated.

 

Saying that, games should not be sold to people not old enough to satisfy the age certificate and parents should not buy them for their kids, though I think the supposed level of incidence for this is also exaggerated.

[Lucas]

Oh and I thoroughly reccomend you read the 'Readers Reccomended Comments'

 

I must admit, a while back when there was a case of someone killing a driver by dropping a brick from a motorway bridge, I did half expect someone to blame Tetris.

[TuX]

Jack Thompson should be the one getting a public nusance order,he is so overreactive with games.

Bully has at least a BBFC fifteen certificate and shops are getting stricter with who they sell to.

Underrage people usually get the game from their parents going into shops and buying it for them,so it's not the games that are to blame,it's the people that are buying them for underrage people.

Bullying has been a part of life for many,so why should not it be used? why ignore the subject like it doesn't exist or is illegal? for those that are old enough to buy it,they are able to choose whether to or not-and that right should not be taken away because of others not educating themselves about games before buying them for their children,films have a lot worse things in them.

Edited October 14, 2006 by TuX

[noogsy]

i havent seen this but i will not be buying if i do...lol...love noogsy

[curra]

DP,

I agree with you, this game could popularise school violence. It's oviously aimed at school children, not at adults. 10-15 year olds are the ones who will be most interested in the game because 15 year olds are already thinking of playing games for 18. How can this guy say that "Anyone over 15 knows that hitting someone with a baseball bat is going to cause serious head injury and would not copy it just because they saw it in a video game."?? He must live in lala land.

I'm not buying it.

 

Curra

[oxgirl]

I find this very disturbing!

 

~ Mel ~

[Lucas]

I really don't understand how anyone can say this would 'popularise' school violence; Grand Theft Auto certainly never encouraged or succeeded in convincing someone that stealing a car was fun. This game is not even out yet and people are already making decisions about it based on the pre-projected theme.

 

Games are in essence just a connected series of pre-programmed mechanisms, one could be an animation of a punch by the Player-Character, followed by a collision-detection which makes a decision on what gets hit depended on all the positions of objects in relation to the PC, the last mechanism will be an animation of something getting hit but this does not neccessarily mean it's a fighting or violence-oreintated game because so many other factors can be involved. From what is known about Bully, you can't hit smaller kids, girls or teachers, you must also not get caught fighting by a teacher of school staff member. This adds several dimensions of mechanisms to the game which are non-violent, in the end the number of non-violent mechanisms outnumber the violent ones overwhelmingly because the game would just be pretty cr@p otherwise.

 

Because of this, it's more likely to be about stealth and strategy than it is violence: in all violent games you rarely succeed and win through all-out violence, developers mainly make games that way because players would get so easily bored with it. Some examples can be: Manhunt, 50% sneaking around, 40% problem solving, 10% violence which is of course strong enough to give it the 18 certificate, but the Daily Mail tells it's readers that 'violence is a major part of the game'. In Manhunt, you control a PC no stronger than any single enemy you encounter, they are often far stronger and better equipped than you and they work together with other enemies: this forces you most of the time to avoid encounters, sneak around and memorise complicated patrol routes to get past safely, you are extremely likey to die if you try killing every enemy in a single level.

 

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was the subject of an onscenity lawsuit by Jack Thompson in Florida where he demanded that he be provided with an advanced copy of the game so he could view it before it went on sale and make his case against it, the developer refused for good reasons concerning piracy and Thompson being a possible leak of the code. They instead brought the game to the judge's chamber where Thompson and the judge watched one of the developers play the game to demonstrate it's average content. It was pretty much a forgone conclusion that the judge would dismiss Thompson's charges as for something to be banned under obscenity laws in the US it must have 'absolutely no artistic merit', but GTA:SA featured a strong storyline with sub-plots, in-depth character and car customisation and of course Thompson would have been furious to learn first-hand that you could not access the 'hot coffee' mod on a console version of the game as it is impossible to tamper with a hard copy to do so: the game is sold 'as is' and as is does not have that feature.

 

But it's not simply those games plastered with 18 that get exaggerated: the Daily Mail called Goldeneye on the N64 'bloodsport' because it was a 15(this was back when the 15 certificate for games existed in the UK when ELSPA did the ratings), the most blood in this game were irregular stained shirts. Did they even play the game? Has anyone here seen how ungraphic Goldeneye was in terms of violent content? The last two Prince of Persia games all had 16+ certs and they are hardly Kill Bill.

 

The most violent game I've ever seen is The Sims, can you guess what certificate that got?

[madmooch]

I think that people/adolescents who copy these games and commit violence are that way inclined to start with, I grew up watching Omen, Nightmare on Elm St etc and i did't think i'll go out and kill someone, i'm not a violent person at all.

 

I agree under age kids should not see these games/play them and it's irresponsable to give underage kids them but as for 15 yr olds - they are old enough to know right from wrong so if they do start copying them and being violent - they must have had those tendencies to start with/ something wrong in their brain.

 

 

Clare

[bramblebrae]

<quote>The Rockstar spokesman said the game was "entertainment" and was "out of reach of people who are unable to draw a distinction between what's real and what's fantasy". </quote>

 

I'm not sure how he reaches this conclusion. I would think that some people who are unable to draw this important distinction do get theri hands on games and this is where th eproblem arises. I would agree with Clare in that the tendancies have to be there first i don't think a game or DVD etc can cause a person to become violent. I play alot of games particularly MMORPG it's sheer escapism and I get something out of building up my character and succeding in goals such as I just completed all the quests available for my favourite game this morning (WOOT ) It lets me enjoy slaying monsters etc (not my favourite part but thats just me) safely and I can chat to others enjoying the same thing and discuss strategy etc It feels more like an intellectual pursuit than anything. This game is for 13 plus and I would actually make it higher not because of any violence etc within the game itself but it has a chat filter which is very easy to get around and some people just say the rudest things to each other usually the youngest kids and can be downright mean. Also console wise i just completed Da Vinci code PS2 now this was a 12 cert and my son did watch it with me as I played. He enjoyed it as a story and helped me with the decyphring parts as his atention to details was really helpful to me. There ws some violence in it but it would actually be aviodable almost completely if you were good at being stealthy which I'm not unfortunately! I just saw the fighting as something to get through to move onto the puzzles and progress. I will let him watch the DVD perhaps when it comes out as I've read th ebook but not seen the movie yet.. I'll have to decide on the 'fright' nightmare factor once I've watched it.

Overall I'm much more worried about how words can hurt people and online bullying in chat rooms and online games across the internet can be very negative and may affect younger people. I will monitor my son very closely if he ever gets to chatting online with others in anyway jsut as I would his relationships in real life. I think virtually it is very easy to get carried away and say things to people you would never dream of uttering in the real world, well I have done this and regretted later once I've come to my senses but actually I really don't talk to anyone but family in the real world oh yeah and hollering at other '?drivers?' from the safety of my car with the windows up

 

Lorraine

[Canopus]

Age ratings for video games are only voluntary and are not legally enforced. The Video Recordings Act 1984 specifically states that it does not cover video games although in recent years a few games have got a BBFC 18 rating. If you look carefully, BBFC age ratings on videos and DVDs are circular and PEGI age ratings on video games are square to prevent confusion.

 

For many years I have opposed compulsory age ratings for video games because it will open up a can of worms. However, this Bully game is absolutely disgusting and it makes me wonder what the motive behind its creators really are.

[jb1964]

Hi,

 

I know very little about this game - but did read in the paper the other day that one of the big stores (I think it was Curry's?) have refused to stock this game because of it's content.

 

Take care,

Jb

[Lucas]

Erm, the game hasn't been released yet, hasn't even been previewed(the look at before a review) and there is actually very little known about it by people who haven't played it. Reading this month's Edge magazine: there isn't even a lot of violence in it! Where is this supposed controversial content?!!

 

I've seen the player-character doing tricks on a skateboard, BMX, attend classes which appear to be mini-games and the most physical harm he inflicted himself was pinning a sign saying 'kick me' on someone's back. It is not as the ambulance-chasing Jack Thompson claimed a 'bullying-simulator' even in the sense that GTA was supposed to be a 'murder-simulator': you do not play a bully in the game, you play a delinquint that encounters characters at his new school which are far worse than him and the sitations he's forced to confront actually reverse his moral compass throughout the game's storyline. This is the 'Columbine-inspired obscenity' that is supposed to make up the game.

 

Canopus, I believe the law was altered in 1993 right after the release of Mortal Kombat 2 which caused outcry: now any game using 'actors' visually(this was the unique feature about Mortal Kombat at the time) had to be considered for a BBFC.

 

xxxx, xxxx is not a major games retailer, though every retailer that sells games likes to pretend most games are bought from their stores. xxxx was one of the retailers which also refused to stock Manhunt though there was never any evidence that anyone invovled in this decision had actually ever played the game. Now it's repeating all over: Canis Canem Edit/Bully has sparse violence, no blood, no one dies, it could be Bart Simpson in the lead role, but there is controversy and those able to make decisions without informing themselves are scrambling to do so for publicity. xxxxx, xxxx and xxxx don't make a lot of money from selling games because they don't know what to stock, how to sell it and what for, nor have any staff specifically on hand with specialist knowledge: they make more money with publicity when they jump on bandwagons.

 

How much does anyone know about this game?

 

(post edited to comply with forum rules and guidelines)

Edited October 22, 2006 by nellie

[Canopus]

Canopus, I believe the law was altered in 1993 right after the release of Mortal Kombat 2 which caused outcry: now any game using 'actors' visually(this was the unique feature about Mortal Kombat at the time) had to be considered for a BBFC.

 

You are right. The Video Recordings Act 1984 was amended in 1994 to include certain features in video games.

[lynyona]

Having a discussion about this with my DS who is 17 went onto tell me that in our local Woolworths he went to buy a game and they did question his age as it was a 16 and he was only 15 at the time that they had actually refused to sell him it.I know that the age thing is down to responsibility of the serving individual as in the shop where i work for sale of age restricted products such as tobacco alcohol and fireworks it is our responsibilty/Unfortuanetly there will never be an ideal way of stopping games getting to children underage especially with things like internet shopping sites that sell games,i dont ever remember my ds being asked his age before buying a game online.But myself as a parent woulnt have bought these games for them.

 

 

 

 

lynn