Atomic Games: Six Days in Fallujah

[akd]

It should be noted that Six Days in Fallujah is actually not an FPS.

[gunnergoz]

I'm no different or more special than any other individual of 18 years plus, no more able to differentiate between a video game and reality than anyone else. Let's put down the "of course I'm only thinking of the plebian masses and what's best for them the poor deluded ignorant peasants" and give them the same credit your apparently giving me.

You presumably have some examples in mind when you talk of "in part inspired and fired up by what they've seen and done in some game or another"?

Columbine comes to mind.

I'm not addressing the ordinary, healthy individual who can think for him/her self and decide what is fantasy and what is reality. I'm addressing the fact that there are thousands of mentally less stable individuals in this society too - and that they have access to these games as well. What benefit is there to egging on the mentally unstable or antisocially inclined? Just so supposedly smart, healthy people can pretend to kill innocents in a game glamorizing the criminal lifestyle?

Everything is ultimately about profit and me, me, me in this society and nothing is ever about what is best for the most people. I see no particular redeeming social value to such games and I think that intelligent, socially conscious people should have enough sense to embargo such game manufacturers, to stop buying their tripe, and perhaps sales will drop off enough that the making of such stuff becomes less profitable and finally dies off.

But if you wish to exercise your right to purchase crap from people who think you like crap, then have fun. Just don't be one of those people bemoaning the fact that society is going to hell in a hand basket.

PS - this is not personal, it is simply an argument against a position you've taken.

[Michael Emrys]

If anything, the greatest threats to our youth today are overly permissive parenting and the lack of support structures upon which to build a healthy foundation. While I do not believe that it is entirely possible to safeguard children from exposure to negative influences in this information age, it is ultimately the parents' responsibility to ensure that time limits for recreational activity are set and enforced in addition to keeping the lines of communication open.

This much of your argument I would agree with. The problem with it is that, even given the most serious and sincere efforts by parents, it can be very difficult for them to counter the pervasive influence of the surrounding culture. Until that culture can be made more parent-friendly (in terms of supporting the efforts of parents to inculcate responsible behavior in maturing children), a large number of them are doomed to failure. Call that "social engineering" if you must, but sooner or later it must be recognized as inescapable. For my part, I'd rather see that begin soon and be introduced carefully, so as to allow for analysis of results and correction of policy to be made, rather than have an oh-my-god-crash-program that lands another yet ineffectual bureaucracy on our necks.

Michael

[akd]

Columbine comes to mind.

Pretty sure that is a myth.

[Pak_43]

I'm not addressing the ordinary, healthy individual who can think for him/her self and decide what is fantasy and what is reality. I'm addressing the fact that there are thousands of mentally less stable individuals in this society too - and that they have access to these games as well. What benefit is there to egging on the mentally unstable or antisocially inclined? Just so supposedly smart, healthy people can pretend to kill innocents in a game glamorizing the criminal lifestyle?

No, of course you're not addressing those individuals, but some perceived mass of mentally unstable subnormals incapable of separating fantasy from fiction from reality?

How do these supposed thousands of people survive in our modern society? Could they be holding down jobs, paying taxes and voting governments in and out of power?

And if these supposed masses are having their minds twisted and altered by playing video games how come there aren't hundreds of incidents of people acting out their most outrageous fantasies taken directly from games such as GTAIV in the streets all over the world? GTAIV has sold in excess of 6 million copies and in fact sold 3.6 million copies on it's first day out.

With the levels of debauchery and violence going on in the game that you suggest influence people you'd have thought there would be a massive spike of violence several weeks after the release of the game as all those poor, mentally disturbed psycho's mentally masturbate to the sex and violence on their screens before grabbing their keys and heading to the towns and cities of the world to commit mass murder...

Funnily enough I don't think any such crime wave happened, certainly not near me, or in fact near anyone I know.

What about near you? Notice any whacko's running around blasting a cap into the ass of nearby motorists while receiving text messages on their phones saying to go and deliver some drugs?

I'd have thought we'd have been knee deep in them after 3.6 million sales on the first day.

I'd have thought there'd have been a direct and easy to make correlation between sales of such a game and the levels of violence endemic in society.

I'd have thought those who opposed violent video games would have been desperate to draw a parallel with some pretty unrefutable data that would have closed the book once and for all on the subject.

I'd have thought that the media would have gone crazy-go-nuts (c. Strongbad) over this massive crime spike and splashed all of the dead bodies all over the news...

[Dietrich]

Do you think that just because CoD4 didn't name the country in which the operations take place somehow makes it OK for the arabs/muslims?

As I recall, several of the missions are stated to take place in Azerbaijan. Those missions, however, are not the ones in which the player faces obviously Middle Eastern insurgents.

Speaking of CoD4, I was rather puzzled when, at the beginning of the mission which ends with the player capturing the Middle Eastern terrorist mastermind Khaled Al-Asad, you hear screams and gunshots in the distance, someone on your team asks what all the noise is about, and a Loyalist (Russian) soldier replies, "It's the Ultranationalists; they're killing the villagers," but when he enter said village, there are no bodies strewn about, no blood stains on walls, no evidence that any killing of civilians per se had happened. I understand that probably the game's developers omitted evidence of the mentioned villager-killing so as to not risk an undesirably high rating, but it yields something of a break in immersion (though an aspect of immersion that many would rather forgo) when the aftermath of a heinous act is concealed thus. If in the end it's effectively like no murdering of villagers actually happened, why state such is happening and include an unnerving amount of corresponding sound effects?

I don't have problems with wargames in general [...] What I am more mystified by are the games such as Grand Theft Auto and some others like it, that basically feed whatever enthusiasm there is out there in the community for criminal thinking and amoral viciousness.

I think GTAIV is a great game, with a fantastic storyline and deep characterisation [...] Of course it's the poster child for the "video games are all nasty and horrible and are bringing down society"

I think a not-insignificant part of the appeal of the GTA games and their ilk is the increasingly prevalent criminal-as-good-guy thing.

A friend of mine put it thus: "Better to be [i.e., play in a game] a gun-wielding, drug-dealing, prostitute-slapping, amoral criminal than a corrupt, hypocritical politician, since when you're the criminal, at least everyone knows you're an ***hole."

What about near you? Notice any whacko's running around blasting a cap into the ass of nearby motorists while receiving text messages on their phones saying to go and deliver some drugs?

I live in a fairly quiet town (a bedroom community of about 40,000) about an hour's drive north of San Francisco. Three years ago, while playing basketball at a local outdoor court with half a dozen friends of mine, a fight broke out between two of the several dozen gangbangers hanging out at the immediately adjacent court (i.e., 20 feet away), which ended when a third gangbanger pulled out his pistol (I actually saw him do so) and shot one of the first two, who later died.

I'd rather play a SWAT operator shooting and killing a ruthless criminal than a ruthless criminal shooting and killing SWAT operators.

[gunnergoz]

Columbine comes to mind.

Pretty sure that is a myth.

There was influence, but extent of which is unclear; still, there is no question that both shooters played DOOM a lot. They were also apparently influenced by film (The Basketball Diaries, where a trench-coated shooter goes around killing students in a high school) and who knows what else from the media.

link: http://wiki.media-culture.org.au/index.php/Video_games_-_Columbine_and_violent_video_games

[JonS]

Look at the civilian body count in WW2... tens of MILLIONS of civilians died.

[above from p.1]

FWIW, WWII is a huge outlier in terms of civilian cas, both in terms of absolute numbers and as a proportion of combatant cas. It's orders of magnitude different to pretty much any other war.

At the macro scale, civilians in WWII isn't a great example of anything except the experience of civilians in WWII.

[C'Rogers]

For those criticizing GTA IV, check out the Rockstar game Manhunt. That game made GTA look like an ideal game for children to play in comparison. Also the only game that I actually felt myself actually become nauseated while playing.

[dieseltaylor]

I do think that it is perhaps daft to simply look at violent video games and ignore violent films and the numerous murders per hour on US TV. I am suggesting that there is a whole ethos of violence equals good viewing.

I think there should be limits on murderous scenes and violence that people watch or engage in. There are many reasons:

1. In games the re-set button always gets you back to life. [Not so in CM : )]

2. Instils fear into people who have very very low odds of being murdered.

3. It keeps off the air more wholesome or useful programs

4. Shortened attention spans are not helpful to real life.

5. Violence is seen to resolve problems - unlike the real world

However in terms of video games being generally harmless - how do you feel about this one? Admittedly nobody dies but it is violent.

Systems > PC > R > RapeLay > Staff Review

Sign into your user account to view or leave feedback for this review. Don't have an account yet? You can click here to open one. It only takes a minute, and it's free!

Review by Zigfried

May 27, 2006

As much as I wish RapeLay were an awesome hentai shooter starring an enormous naked lava man (he would attack by lobbing volcanic volleys of sperm), it's not. RapeLay is a disturbing rape simulator developed by the same misogynistic dickheads who brought us Battle Raper 2 which, oddly enough, didn't contain any actual rape.

I think they're making up for that. I think they've overcompensated.

Game creative staff RapeTeam Illusion certainly didn't make any effort to hide the nature of their latest "work". RapeLay's creepy cover shows defiant schoolgirl Aoi trying to protect her tearful little sister from two menacing, outstretched hands.

SPOILER: SHE FAILS.

These two hands belong to Kimura Masaya, a heartless wretch who doesn't deserve to be named after Ai Choaniki's lovely publisher. Evil-type Masaya escaped the steel grip of imprisonment... and now, taking a twisted cue from I Know What You Did Last Summer, he's returned to rape the entire Kiryuu clan: lusty mother Yuuko, busty schoolgirl Aoi, and dainty sylph Manaka. They're all attractive and smoothly animated (genuinely noteworthy accomplishments for 3D hentai), and they all get brutally debauched. More on that in a bit.

When you first play through RapeLay, each girl is presented one at a time in a three-scene series. During the first scene, the unsuspecting target waits in front of the train station. For a train. At this point, you — the deranged gamer pretending to be a rapist — have two choices.

Option One: Stare at the girl with creepy narrow stalker eyes.

Option Two: Exercise shamanistic Peruvian powers to summon a gust of wind. Instead of defending the world from diabolical cultists, you use this ability to blow womens' skirts up, revealing their pretty white panties.

Now begins the heavy petting drama.

Once aboard the train, you'll engage in a "groping" scene. Basically, you control a disembodied hand with the mouse. You can fondle, pat, or stroke the poor girl to your heartless soul's content — even when she gets fed up and swats the hand away, she can't ever escape from the most intangible villain since Lucifer Alpha. She just looks really, really uncomfortable.

"Who... who's there?" Yuuko is unable to locate her assailant, even though there are only four or five people on the train. The other girls aren't any smarter. If they scowl when you jiggle their breasts, just move your hand and massage... down there. Maybe your arms are invisible, like in Elfen Lied. Maybe the girls are just stupid. Either way, you have to fondle the women as their Horniness Meter slowly, slowly, slowly creeps its way up to the limit.

Crazy people — the types who try to rationalize virtual rape fantasies — might claim that these "groping" scenes are built upon the principles of diligence and delayed gratification. Me, I say they're boring and pointless, since you can't possibly lose.

After several painfully tedious minutes, the poor girl runs away in fright, presumably to tattle to the police, a neighbor, or a Junker. Unfortunately, all three women choose to run somewhere secluded where it's easy to pin them down, tear off their clothes, and anally rape them. There are other options too, such as coerced blowjobs, but none of them are consensual. It all boils down to raping women and jizzing into or across their bodies.

"Sniff... sniff... I w-w-want to die..."

That's the kind of dialogue you'll hear after each rape. Then you'll either snap some quick photographs of their desecrated bodies or rape them again to shut them up. RapeLay contains a lot of rape.

In an attempt to blend actual gameplay with its cutting-edge character models, RapeLay incorporates a flexible sex system that lets you adjust positions, techniques, and vibrator placement. You can even impregnate the women (and then rape them some more). Unfortunately, although saucy schoolgirl Aoi can't protect her own virginity, she'll get really, really mad if you knock up her mother or sister. And when Aoi gets mad, she gets lethally violent.

Don't panic! Abort the baby and she'll never find out.

After you've completed the story mode, the remainder of the game focuses on transforming each hot little number into a devoted sex slave. You do this by raping them some more. As the girls learn to enjoy being raped (a disturbingly predictable trend for these kinds of games), you'll unlock the ability to watch some hot lesbian action or engage in threesomes, foursomes, or gang-bangs with creepy Taneo Tanamatsuri look-alikes. RapeLay even keeps track of how many times you cum inside each girl (that's what the nakadashi count is for), so you're encouraged to rape them repeatedly in every orifice. Then you can boast to friends about your nakadashi achievements, unless your friends happen to disapprove of rape.

All of this is controlled with the mouse through an intuitive "click and drag" interface, which leaves your other hand free to masturbate while watching graphic scenes of rape.

Excuse me for asking, but why are you doing such awful things?

To some extent, RapeLay represents a substantial evolution in hentai gaming: diverse, real-time, interactive sexual intercourse. But let's be honest. In RapeLay, you rape women in the most abusive manner possible and the women learn to like it. Well-programmed or not, I can't get behind that.

//Zig

[C'Rogers]

Only time for a quick reply. Rapelay is a Japanese game. The Japanese have many games for weird, often disgusting, sexual fetishes. They consider the idea that a person might find another person sexual likes disturbing a bit silly. They also have very violent games.

The problem is you need to make a connection between disturbing content and disturbing actions (not just an assumption or belief that they should follow each other). I think, though don't have time to check, that the Japanese have one of the lower crime rates in the world despite the proponderous of such entertainments options.

[Thomm]

Although the focus in Six Days is on realism, the game is still making concessions to some video game staples, such as the regenerating health meter.

Uh oh.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Although the focus in Six Days is on realism, the game is still making concessions to some video game staples, such as the regenerating health meter.

Uh oh.

Best regards,

Thomm

Saw that somewhere else and it markedly decreased my interest in the game. Oh well. More time spent waiting on Ground Branch then.

[akd]

Columbine comes to mind.

There was influence, but extent of which is unclear; still, there is no question that both shooters played DOOM a lot. They were also apparently influenced by film (The Basketball Diaries, where a trench-coated shooter goes around killing students in a high school) and who knows what else from the media.

link: http://wiki.media-culture.org.au/index.php/Video_games_-_Columbine_and_violent_video_games

I could likewise say that they watched Sesame Street as children, so there was influence, but the extent is not clear (i.e. could range from virtually none to the primary causal factor).

Anyways, that link is so deeply biased, it undermines your point. We will never understand the true causes and motivations of the attack because the attackers are both dead. In their absence, we desperately seek escape goats.

[dieseltaylor]

c'rogers

The problem is you need to make a connection between disturbing content and disturbing actions (not just an assumption or belief that they should follow each other). I think, though don't have time to check, that the Japanese have one of the lower crime rates in the world despite the proponderous of such entertainments options.

I know the Japanese have low crime rates for both rape and murder. The interesting point is I think how in a fairly rigid society people are constrained to behave "better".

I was wondering if anyone would bite and actually find the video game objectionable.

[gunnergoz]

The arguments against the influence of gratuitously violent games (I call them killer porn) reminds me very much of the arguments taken against global warming theory.

[C'Rogers]

The arguments against the influence of gratuitously violent games (I call them killer porn) reminds me very much of the arguments taken against global warming theory.

Would you care to elaborate or do you just want a one sentence comment to say the arguments we are making have no weight without actually making it?

I know the Japanese have low crime rates for both rape and murder. The interesting point is I think how in a fairly rigid society people are constrained to behave "better".

The Japanese are a very structured society that has few restrictions on entertainments (at least of the non-medicinal kind). Even some of the things in their children programs would not be readily acceptable on prime time TV in America.

I can just as easily and realistically postulate that unrestricted media (allowing obscene levels of violence/sex) can create a more rigid society by allowing people to enact their desires through fictional forms, thus making them better able to cope with the societal norms.

I was wondering if anyone would bite and actually find the video game objectionable.

Objectionable? Sure, if one is upset by fantasy, but that isn't the issue. Lots of things are objectionable to lots of different people. I find all sorts of speech objectionable but firmly believe that a person has the right to say it. Should I be bothered if someone wants to fantasize about something that is illegal in society (whether it be sexual or violent)? If he keeps it to himself and doesn't act on it I don't see the slightest reason why it should bother me, or why I should have a right to stop such products.

Which, I think, is the crux of the issue. I don't think media should be censored because it is going to upset someone. Is a lot of media tasteless, absolutely. So what. It's just fiction, I don't have to partake in it, neither does anyone who finds it unappealing.

Show me a study that x tasteless media actually leads to y unacceptable behavior and we are in a totally different ball park.

[gunnergoz]

Would you care to elaborate or do you just want a one sentence comment to say the arguments we are making have no weight without actually making it?

(snip)

Not a full blown elaboration, just that it seems to me that such arguments (denying the influence of gratuitously violent games and films upon certain individuals) mostly consist of repeatedly saying "it ain't so" over and over again.

Of course, we cannot crawl into the skulls of people who kill (often they are dead afterwards) but even when they are still around to comment about their behavior and its causes, it is clear that they are different. And I would offer that such people react differently from normal people, when exposed to repeated scenes of violence or murder in games or the media (both of which obviously require the consent of the watcher or participant, if for nothing else but to stay tuned in to the show/game.)

As for me, I would gladly give up watching ultraviolent movies, if the makers of such films stopped making them in the hopes of reducing violence in society. I see it as a worthy experiment which could only benefit all of us, but especially those most vulnerable to such stimulation, and to their potential victims down the road. I don't play such games, but I'd be equally happy to see their demise as well.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Not a full blown elaboration, just that it seems to me that such arguments (denying the influence of gratuitously violent games and films upon certain individuals) mostly consist of repeatedly saying "it ain't so" over and over again.

Well, if you ignore the reasons they're saying that "it ain't so" over and over again, that's pretty much every argument against anything. So I'll provide you with some reasons.

Take GTA IV. It sold over 10 million copies. If even 1% of the people who played this game began to cause violence, that would be an absurd spike in crime and violence on a scale never seen outside of a civil insurrection. Not only that, but 1% is an extremely low fraction to say that GTA IV is a causal factor in the violence.

GTA IV is one game. If you total all of the other games that depict graphic violence and other such content, and assumed that 1% of the people who played them were caused to do school shootings and other such things, there would be hundreds of school shootings every day. The burden of proof is on the people who argue that video games do cause violence, and not on those that do not.

Now, I believe the argument was made earlier in this thread that it's not the normal people who are affected, it's the mentally ill who are affected. If we made all of our media control legislation, all of our laws, etc., based on what could potentially affect a mentally ill person, we would have no media. We would have no cars. We would have no sharp objects. We would all be sitting in the equivalent of padded cells.

The solution here is not to deprive hundreds of millions of people from a form of entertainment that is profitable and generates thousands if not millions of jobs just because of the actions of a few mentally handicapped people, the solution is to appropriately diagnose and treat the mentally ill people before they cause harm on others. This is a win-win solution, provided that it's properly carried out. Obviously, this would require infrastructure, etc., etc., but I'm willing to pay a couple of extra dollars per year to the government to help ensure that this kind of tragedy doesn't happen again.

This kind of problem has always been here. The only reason it's gotten particularly bad lately is the lax gun laws in the US and A and the increases in firearms technology. And, as a good citizen of the US and A, I know that those gun laws aren't going to be changed any time soon. So, what'll it be? Lose millions of people their jobs and entertainment in the middle of a recession and not fix the problem, or create thousands of counseling and therapy jobs and solve the problem?

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Something else I forgot to post, and now can't edit in:

Video games are a symptom of the problem, not the cause. These mentally ill people who have all of this aggression and violence building up inside of them try to release their aggression through video games. The problem is that it doesn't work, or it only works for a little while.

[Thomm]

I remember that Grossman ("On Killing") compares the effects of video games (FPS) to the desensitization processes that soldiers are subjected to in order to make them efficient killers. This is especially true for arcade games where the player handles a weapon replica. Expert players of these kind of games show tremendous skill when supplied with real weapons and send to real SWAT training sets.

I have no reason to doubt Grossman (http://www.killology.com/). I am also convinced (after more than a decade of playing FPSs) that "killer games" affected my mind in one way or another. I cannot exactly describe how, but I am sure they did.

I am sure that "killer games" do not "make" killers, but I am also convinced that they do affect people.

On the other hand, my brother and I fought with everything from sawed-off broomsticks to MP-40s made from Fischer Technik when we were children, so we were not exactly pacifists in the real world, either.

Best regards,

Thomm

[costard]

Every time I see this topic come up I'm reminded of a Calvin and Hobbes strip:

"Graphic violence in the media.

Does it glamorize violence? Sure.

Does it desensitize us to violence? Of course.

Does it help us tolerate violence? You bet.

Does it stunt our empathy for our fellow human beings? Heck yes.

Does it cause violence? Well, that's hard to prove.

The trick is to ask the right question"

Bill Watterson, "There's Treasure Everywhere"

[MSBoxer]

This reminds me of the 70s when we were bombarded with stories of how D&D was turning our youth into unstable violent/suicidal psychopaths. I will use the same argument now that i used then. IMHO, individuals who commit these acts are predisposed to violence, it just so happens that they play these games.

OK, so let's say that 70% of violent criminals have played an FPS in the last year, that would probably still only constitute less than 1% of all FPS players, so what is the connection? You could also say that 100% of all violent criminals had eaten fast food in the last week, so does McDonalds cause violent behavior?

[dieseltaylor]

This reminds me of the 70s when we were bombarded with stories of how D&D was turning our youth into unstable violent/suicidal psychopaths. I will use the same argument now that i used then.

MSBoxer

I was around then and must have missed the bombardment ...Still I don't think role-playing or figure gaming was in any way as insidious as video simply because it was considerably slower and also group played. I wish I could be as certain to think that what I believed thirty years ago was still as valid when applied to different media. : )

Essentially I think the effects of violence in the media are as Costard quoted Bill Waterson. However to look solely at rates of violence/rape is to ignore what I consider the more dangerous threat and that is the breakdown of society.

Consider how we as children played in the 50's, 60's ,70's and now see how kids are today. Has there been a change? Why so?

Sexualisation of children at an early age. True/False? Beneficial or not?

Fear of strangers. Higher or lower?

But first am I barking up the wrong tree ? Is the US less violent and lawless than in previous decades? Apparently not.

http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystaterun.cfm?stateid=52

So those who wish to quote that the media has no or little affect perhaps may like to help me understand what is going on in Society. For those who cannot access the details murder rate up 10% since 1960, violent crime 300%, ... in fact most crimes rape, larceny, car theft, aggravated assault etc are up by double or treble.

And just to add something less solid to the frame and for those who blessedly have no knowledge of Manhunt and what a good game it is - this from Wkipedia

The controversy surrounding the game stems from the extremely graphic manner in which the player executes enemies. The game has three 'levels' of executions, and the executions get bloodier as the levels of execution progress. Level 1 executions are quick and the least bloody of the three, while Level 2 executions are considerably more gory, and Level 3 kills are over-the-top fatalities. An example of a Level 1 execution would be suffocating an enemy to death with a plastic bag. A Level 2 execution might feature severing an enemy's testicles by pulling a sickle between his legs. A Level 3 execution can involve stabbing an enemy in the back with a crowbar, following it up by jamming it into the enemy's head, wiggling it in the skull, and finally prying the head off from the spine. The game's graphic presentation of the executions are accentuated in a style reminiscent of a snuff film, and the game encourages players to execute enemies as brutally as possible.

Knife and gun crime constitutes about 5% of total injuries treated in hospitals around the UK and costs the NHS about £80m, he went on. The Royal London saw an increase in the number of knife injuries it treated from about 70 in 2004 to about 280 in 2008, he said.

Manhunt released November 2003. Just saying ......

[Field Marshal Blücher]

The controversy surrounding the game stems from the extremely graphic manner in which the player executes enemies. The game has three 'levels' of executions, and the executions get bloodier as the levels of execution progress. Level 1 executions are quick and the least bloody of the three, while Level 2 executions are considerably more gory, and Level 3 kills are over-the-top fatalities. An example of a Level 1 execution would be suffocating an enemy to death with a plastic bag. A Level 2 execution might feature severing an enemy's testicles by pulling a sickle between his legs. A Level 3 execution can involve stabbing an enemy in the back with a crowbar, following it up by jamming it into the enemy's head, wiggling it in the skull, and finally prying the head off from the spine. The game's graphic presentation of the executions are accentuated in a style reminiscent of a snuff film, and the game encourages players to execute enemies as brutally as possible.

That's pretty disgusting. I hadn't heard of the game until you pointed it out, now I'm kind of glad I hadn't!

Your statistic about violent crimes, etc. increasing since 1960 is interesting. That said, the media isn't the only thing that's changed since then. Out of curiosity, do you know how the rates are calculated? If it's "per 1000 people per year" or something, that's more meaningful than "total # of crimes per year," since the world population has tripled or so since then.

Not challenging the stats, just curious about them.

Manhunt released November 2003. Just saying ......

Um, Britain took measures to control the sales of the game (at least it says so further down in the wikipedia article), which would therefore seem to not really help the point you're trying to make.