Germany bans public Counter-Strike

I just posted the article Germany bans public Counter-Strike.

In its latest crackdown on violent video games, Germany is banning the popular first-person shooter Counter-Strike at public LAN events, leading to the cancellation of a major…

Read the full article here:  [](

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

Yeah, it’s the video games that are the biggest problem. Nobody ever killed anyone before video games came along. Ted Bundy, the Son of Sam, the Zodiac, Jack the Ripper, John Wayne Gacy and all of their friends just spent way too much time at LAN parties where they were indoctrinated into violence by these horrible games. The Nazis would have been cuddly little kittens if it hadn’t been for all those bloody video games they all played as children. If Hitler had just read a good book instead of wasting so much time on violent video games he would never have hated the Jews. And look at Stalin. That guy spent almost every waking moment glued to the screen and it cost millions of Russians their lives. Yeah, once we get rid of those damn games all this violence will just go away.

Amen… :iagree:

Now really, I can’t believe that there are intelligent people in decision-making positions in Germany that really backup such bans. It makes no sense… If someone is mentally ill to such an extend to go out and start killing a bunch of people, all he needs is a triggering event to set it off. As much as i doubt it even is that, a PC game is just that: the triggering event.

The true reasons behind it, is the lack of ability to detect the mentality disorder issues by the family, friends, the teachers, the society as a whole. It’s merely a complete failure of the system. And to cry out video games as the culprit, is just an - unimaginative - way of hiding behind your thumb in order to avoid the problem… And that would be alright, but the problem is… oh… well… it never really works…

I don’t think video games “make” you want to go out and kill people but I do believe they desensitize people to violent acts, as well as other forms of entertainment like movies, that do as well. I mean we have come a ways from Pac-man, Galaga, and Donkey Kong don’t you think in terms of violence? My question is, why is there a need for violence in video games period? Do you revel in the blood and gore just for the sake of it? If the answer to that question is yes, maybe you should check into a psychiatric ward after all, just to do us all a favor. Games can be fun without having them being graphically violent or gory. Like I said, I don’t think video games “make” people want to kill, I just think they are just another piece in a puzzle that puts that particular unstable individual over the edge.

Agreed. And while there may be some folks who are unbalanced and video games may feed their delusions, how many of those end up going on killing sprees? This is really the biggest problem Germany is facing? Drunk driving isn’t killing more people? Tobacco related deaths aren’t through the roof, and children aren’t getting started smoking young in Germany? Crime and economic issues aren’t serving as greater triggers to upset the unbalanced and causing more grief than video games?

They just target games because it’s easy. “Look, it’s violent, therefore it must cause children to be violent too.” As if children aren’t more influenced by how their parents treat each other, or by the onslaught of daily negative news, which are “real world” issues they have to deal with. No, it’s the imaginary world they escape to that screws them up. Games are just low hanging fruit, easy to pick. They don’t want to tackle the really tough issues. But like the author says, what are they going to do when the lack of violent games doesn’t solve the problem?

It really is hard to fathom that there are intelligent people who just can’t see how the puzzle pieces fit, or just don’t care enough to stand up to the nonsense. And these are the “leaders” of the nation? Ugh.

I just don’t think there’s a link there. 50 years ago many of the same claims were made about violence in children’s cartoons. But studies showed no link between the violent cartoons and increased violence in the children. In fact, they learned that normal children really have a good grasp on the difference between reality and fantasy, and that what may be allowed in fantasy isn’t in reality. What was more important to the children was how their family members treated one another. So I just can’t buy that games are at fault for any criminal behaviors.

Besides, if there were such a link between exposure to violence and a predilection to violence, the violent crime rate in the US would not have dropped in recent years. Violence in media in the US hasn’t slacked off in recent years to be sure. But violent crime stats have been down. Even though children are exposed to more violence today than ever before? But, I’ll bet the stats go back up before long, now that the economy has tanked. I’m guessing there is a strong link between violence and economic prosperity, or lack of it.

In the end, I think they could better spend their time and effort trying to address real, known causes of children’s behavior problems, and stop with the red herring that is gaming.

I’m not saying that I am in favor of banning violent games. However, I can see some value in it for young children. My 3-year-old step-grandson watches his 12-year-old and 19-year-old older brothers play violent shooter games, and he starts talking about how he’s going to “kill” his mom or “kill” his brother. That doesn’t mean he’s going to grow up and be a serial killer, or any other kind of killer, but I don’t think it promotes healthy learning in a kid that young.
Parents need to inhibit watching or participating in this type of activity for young kids, but we don’t need government trying to do the parents’ job.

I don’t think making a comparison to cartoons 50 years ago, Felix the cat or whatever, and how violent games are now is a valid one. Games are extremely violent and you cannot deny that. My question to you or anyone else again, is the violence really necessary at all? Would you miss it if they did stop making games so violent? If yes, maybe you have some issues that really need to be addressed. Here is an article I found from Iowa State University:

The abstract and conclusion supports what I believe and that it does desensitize people.

Well, it’s a bit hard to remove the violence from shooting games, as shooting is part of the game. Same for battle sims. War is violent. But I guess you could say we don’t NEED those games. Just like we don’t NEED tv, which promotes all sorts of things kids shouldn’t see, hear, or do. And we don’t need violent sports, like boxing and hockey, since kids just learn to fight from those. And martial arts are right out, since that makes kids more effective at hurting others, and certainly desensitizes them to fear of assault and personal violence. And we don’t NEED books and magazines with fiction in them, as they don’t promote reality. And we don’t NEED the news bringing murder and mayhem into our homes. When it gets right down to it, we don’t NEED much of anything entertainment or news wise. But it seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face. So, yes, the violence is necessary, if you want a regular life and not the life of a fearful hermit.

And the cartoon issue wasn’t about Felix the cat. It was about the wanton killing and maiming of characters, decapitations, dismemberment, the disregard for law and order, and the way in which children acted out on what they saw. It very much mirrors the discussions of today. So I tend to disagree with you on that. And, I’m sure if you searched a little more, you would find plenty of studies that disagree with the one you chose to post. That’s why it’s not a settled issue. There are as many approaches to the problem as there are people, and studies to support them all. Tends to make me question the results of any one study that claims to find an answer, since it’s clear how they choose to interpret the data affects the conclusions.

But hey, the jury is out. So I have no problem with folks thinking violent games are bad for kids. Feel free to keep your kids away from them. But banning them isn’t the answer.


@Chuckwagon: Your 1st paragraph is very well written - i coulnt agree more

@ shaolin007: I also agree that violent games desensitize people towards violent acts. As do many other things… this in no way warrants their ban. What needs to be done is to reinforce the system so that it identifies individual problematic cases in a better way and treat them accordingly. Because as i said already, the problem exists regardless of the violent games, violent movies etc as the pathology involved is completely unrelated to them.

“My question to you or anyone else again, is the violence really necessary at all? Would you miss it if they did stop making games so violent?”

Violence is part of life, as is death. A healthy human being not only could, but should get in contact with such “ideas” - and a healthy individual is able to cope with it. “Sterilizing” the environment of such issues might be warranted for individuals with coping problems, but not the general population.

@ Ferd: “However, I can see some value in it for young children. My 3-year-old step-grandson watches his 12-year-old and 19-year-old older brothers play violent shooter games, and he starts talking about how he’s going to “kill” his mom or “kill” his brother.”

I also agree that this is not healthy for a kid this young. The game was not designed for a kid this young, because due to its age it has no ways to deal with it. But this comes to prove by initial post about the role of the family in such issues; your grandchild needs to be a bit more efficiently supervised; there is absolutely no reason letting him watch his older brothers while they play (no pun intended)

Ok, you are being ridiculous. Comparing something like hockey to blowing someones brains out. come on now? And they made “plenty” of good games back in the early 80’s that were shooters that weren’t violent.: Galaga, Space Invaders, Defender, Centipede, ect… What I can’t understand, is why you would want your games to the point where they are graphically violent? I am talking about gratuitous violence in the extreme not sports or reading a book. And you miss my point, these games desensitize people. In other words, people played violent games and then were shown violent film footage. Their heart rate hardly climbed while the person that played a non-violent game did the same and that persons HR climbed dramatically. That is what I am saying. I guess growing up in the dawn of video games gives me a different perspective.

Violence is part of life? There is something wrong with that statement don’t you think? Maybe as a society, if we really believe that, then there really is no hope. Violence is not part of life. It is abhorrent to life and to society in civilized parts of the world. It is so abhorrent that we have laws in place to curtail it. Yes, people still do comit violent acts, but they are punished according to law. And the law is in place to say, “We, as a society, will not put up with this type of act or behaviour.”

And you didn’t answer my question to begin with, is the violence in “games” really necessary at all? What purpose does it serve? Does it give you some kind of enjoyment playing graphically violent games? Couldn’t you get enjoyment out of a game not graphically violent?

To answer your 1st question: Yes violence is part of everyday life. Should it be? No. But it is, you can hear it every day in the news. And people do come in close contact with violent acts during their interaction with other people at some point in their life. Either physical or psychological. Shit happens. The fact that violent acts are punishable by law, is society’s way to state what is right and wrong, what is tolerated and what is not; by no means though does it magically make them vanish - the violence is there, and dealing with the idea/notion of it is part of our everyday life, i am afraid.

To answer your second question: it is necessary to the same extend that violence is “necessary” to enjoy a good action movie. I dont see you (no pun intended) or anybody else talking for a worldwide ban of action/thriller/horror movies. Or maybe one would also condone such an action in order to deal with the inability and inefficacy of a whole social system to deal with its problems too… Because maybe it is possible that the millions of people enjoying a good “violent” game or action/horror movie have an underlying mental disease and are all potential school shooters

And what is your opinion about the role of the family and society in general on this issue? How important to you think things like violent games are to the underlying pathology? Do you believe that banning violent games would help in any way, if other criteria/changes are not met?

That study has been cited and disputed for years.

Would I personally miss all the violence in games? No. Quite frankly I’m getting tired of it. But banning violence isn’t the appropriate workaround.

So “graphic” violence is necessary to enjoy a good game or to enjoy a good movie now? Do you know the difference between “graphic” violence and lets say mild violence because there is a difference instead of throwing everything together like you did trying to say it was all the same when it is not. Graphic violence is something you might see in a horror movie or a movie like Saving Private Ryan whereas mild violence might be watching Star Wars Episode 4 or Spaceballs, one of my favorite comedies I might add, hence the R and the PG rating.

The ESRB says this:

[li]Intense Violence - Graphic and realistic-looking depictions of physical conflict. May involve extreme and/or realistic blood, gore, weapons and depictions of human injury and death [/li][/ul]
The game in question, CS:S, is rated M and has that mo****r as well as others from the ESRB.

No, I am not saying that the world will ever be devoid of violence in any degree and never implied it but that doesn’t mean that every time a new game comes out, we should push the boundaries of what is acceptable either.

Let the adults play !
I play violent games but the problem I have with violence in the games is that its too easy for young kids to be exposed.
Last year I played COD4 against 6 and 8 year old kids because their parent took a break from the game and let their kid play it ! Another guy had his 4 year old playing it ! I was disgusted with these parents.

Another point, anyone ever played Saints Row ? I loved it. Its a GTA style game, heavily violent and with extreme language. It was freely downloadable as a demo from Xbox Live, I remember thinking any kid could download and play it unless their parents turned on the parental locks… how many parents even know about these features to lock out violent content ? I bet many do not.

My point exactly; it’s a matter of good parenting. An 18year old can deal with the subject matter of a violent movie/game even a graphicly violent movie as shaolin mentioned :slight_smile:

Instead of educating the parents (or even going after the parents in some cases - personal opinion), society sometimes prefers the easiest way out (banning just games - not even touching other aspects of graphic violence but hey lets not make enemies with Hollywood), a way out that solves nothing.

Shaolin I am under the impression that we have no disagreement. Of course one can live without extreme violence in the games/movies he plays/watches. Hell, I would still enjoy playing Doom without seeing 2 liters of blood being spilled each time I kill an alien. But I would still like to play Doom.

You say that graphic violence is the one found in horror movies. Does this make a horror movie inherently bad? Should they not exist? Not everybody likes Spaceballs :stuck_out_tongue:

Dude you don’t like Spaceballs? I might have to get graphically violent!!! Grrrrr!! LOL :bigsmile:

It has to be the Mario Bros. game all those mushroms, come on give me a break. Stop blaming the games and find the real problem.