Cops and MP’s Unite to Slam Reservoir Dogs Game

Today’s Yorkshire Post – that bastion of polite, conservative northern Englishness – carries a story entitled ‘Chorus of outrage at video game violence’ reporting on MP’s and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) speaking out against Eidos Interactive’s forthcoming videogame version of Quentin Tarantino’s classic Reservoir Dogs.

Yes, here we go again. It’s another example of spurious anti-videogame propaganda cooked up for a poorly researched, overly-sensationalist piece by a regional newspaper hack.

You may remember that we reported back in June that Reservoir Dogs the videogame has been banned in Australia and New Zealand, despite the game's release still being weeks away.

That story piqued our interest in the game, as has today’s Yorkshire Post story. Here, for example, is a brilliant description of stuff you can do in the game, chosen in order to shock gullible YP readers, but in reality makes the Reservoir Dogs game sound loads better than it probably is (we’ll reserve judgement on that until we’ve played it of course):

“Players can take police officers hostage and go on to burn out their eyes with a lit cigar, chop off their fingers with a cigar cutter and hack off their ears using a scalpel, while they plead for their lives and scream in pain.” See? Sounds wicked, eh?

The concerned hack at the Yorkshire Post goes on to report how one Yorkshire MP claimed “...the game encouraged people to act in the same brutal way as the killers of PCs Sharon Beshenivsky and Ian Broadhurst, two West Yorkshire police officers recently gunned down in the line of duty.”

To SPOnG’s trained ear, this sounds much more like a misinformed MP trying to gain some political capital by making unfounded connections between an adult-themed videogame (with the necessary government approved age restrictions marked clearly on the box) and a recent real-life tragedy in which two police officers were killed.

"It contains nothing that is particularly stronger than things found in most 18-rated games," said a BBFC spokeswoman.

A spokeswoman for the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), told the Yorkshire Post: "Anything that encourages violent emotions, including such emotions towards members of the police service, is particularly disturbing and can only be described as offensive.”

"It is disappointing to find violent video games on the market that may cause psychological harm to those who play them,” she continued.

West Yorkshire Police Federation chairman Tom McGhie meanwhile labelled the game "A sickening glorification of violence against police officers… It's impossible to see how such a game can have anything than a highly damaging effect on how people perceive and react to police officers."

The story continues in an all-too-predictable vein, with SPOnG’s old mate, Keith Vaz MP, sticking his oar in, true to form, claiming that the game "...promotes and supports the infliction of extreme violence and cruelty" and calling for it to be banned.

“BAN THESE EVIL GAMES!” is a predictable, depressingly regular headline these days. It’s an off-the-shelf shock-horror tactic used by sensationalist tabloid hacks too lazy to research the issue properly, only wanting to upset misinformed (non-gaming) readers and demonise videogames.

Yes, to reiterate what it seems like we’ve said thousands of times before, violent videogames are clearly not suitable for under-18’s. As is the case with violent, adult-orientated movies, popular music and other areas of entertainment.

In the wrong (under-aged) hands they can be harmful, and parents, retailers and the industry at large have to do all they can to ensure age restrictions are clearly adhered to. “Yes, games in the wrong hands can be harmful… just as a spoon in the wrong hands, can also be lethal,” one wag in the SPOnG office remarked earlier upon reading the news in the Yorkshire Post.