From the BBC News site today:

“A US teenager killed his mother and wounded his father in revenge after they took away his violent computer game, a judge has ruled.”

The game in question? Nope, not GTA, not Manhunt 2, not even the chain-saw-mungus Gears of War. Nope we’re talking about Halo 3. Seriously…

I know it’s a shooter. I know it’s set during a war. But it’s a human super-soldier versus an amalgamated group of alien races, set, in part, on a giant space hula-hoop. If you’re confusing this thing with reality, you’re either nuts, or you’re a Spartan super-soldier from the future and you’re unlikely ever to face trial.

Furthermore there’s an appreciable difference between the Halo series and, say, the aforementioned Gears of War, another humans versus aliens saga. I don’t think that game’s especially damaging either (not to anyone in command of their mental functions; this kid did, after all, choose to steal the key to his dad’s lockbox rather than, say, just nick the game back), but there’s a noticeable difference in the nature of the violence, isn’t there? It’s more up-close-and-personal, less distanced, and delights rather more in the blood and splatter of battle.

The line between ‘action’ and ‘violence’ is a shaky one, but imagine the murderous kid had been angered by the confiscation of his The Fast and The Furious DVD. That’s a 15 movie (Halo 3 is a 15 in the UK for, well, ‘strong violence’), and the action is human-on-human. Would we refer to this as a violent film for someone over the BBFC age to watch? Would we consider Halo 3 appreciably more ‘violent’ than the movie? Would we say that that particular aspect defines either?

I dunno about you, but the neon blue blood spatter and bad guys comprised of heavily-armed space gorillas, amphibious-looking mini-mes and lizard jackals with laser shields pretty much separate the two for me.

Best of all, it turns out that the violent – ahem – nature of the game isn’t relevant to the verdict. The judge totally rejected the ridiculous ‘the game made him nuts’ defence on the grounds, presumably, of utter sense. So in the BBC story, at very most, the word ‘violent’ should have been given quote marks. But even that wholly misrepresents the nature and outcome of the case. It’s a more exciting read for people who don’t know the details, though, so presumably that makes it okay.

I know crap like this goes on every day. But BBC News, who still carry some vague weight of respect, seems to be letting this kind of nonsense slip through more and more often.